339
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] kaba0@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

I believe we should have a new word that differentiates between ultra-basic tiny unit tests, and bigger unit tests that are still not integration tests.

E.g. rust and some other newer languages have a way to write basically an inline test for a function — that would constitute my former category. These make sense during development as a reality check. “Yes, this ad hoc stack I need inside this class should have two elements if I push two elems” sort of thing. That implementation may not even be accessible from the outside in case of an OOP language so you can’t even properly test it. Also, these are the ones that should change with the code and removing them is no big deal.

The other kind should work against the public APIs of libs/classes and they should not be rewritten on internal changes at all.

this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
339 points (96.2% liked)

Programming

17691 readers
155 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS