8 votes

What Could Kill Testing?

3 comments

  1. [3]
    Greg Link
    I appreciated the testing/checking distinction - I'm sure it's far too late now to retcon the terminology in common usage, but it at least gives me a quick way to explain why automated checks...

    I appreciated the testing/checking distinction - I'm sure it's far too late now to retcon the terminology in common usage, but it at least gives me a quick way to explain why automated checks (while valuable) don't guarantee working code. I've seen decent developers lulled into such a false sense of security that they were genuinely shocked by bugs in code that reported 100% coverage.

    3 votes
    1. [2]
      Bauke Link Parent
      I think getting 100% coverage is still a good thing to do because it will check and assure you the code runs in the environments you specifically coded for. Testing is of course there to break...

      I think getting 100% coverage is still a good thing to do because it will check and assure you the code runs in the environments you specifically coded for. Testing is of course there to break your product in other environments, whether it be with dedicated testers or people submitting bug reports.

      1. Greg Link Parent
        Oh yeah, it's definitely valuable, I've just had one too many conversations where it's treated as sufficient on its own.

        Oh yeah, it's definitely valuable, I've just had one too many conversations where it's treated as sufficient on its own.

        1 vote