[jamougha]

We have a new guy at work who loves unit tests. Yammers about them constantly.

If he's working on a feature that needs changes to classes A, B and C then his workflow is: make all the changes to class A, along with lots of unit tests. Then do the same for class B. Finally, do the same for class C. And then, after days of work during which the application doesn't even compile, he runs the integration tests and discovers that the application is broken.

Then someone comes over and rewrites his code so it works.

[hinkley]

Don't listen to coding advice from people who can't write robust code.

Especially testing advice.

If you want testing advice, start with the pool of people you know already write robust code.

[munk-a]

So... that rewrite of his code is pretty quick and easy because the components you're integrating are well covered by tests at that point?

Unless the tests on A, B and C are ineffective I think this comment isn't really about tests - some hired developers just aren't great at writing software but if they all used vim that wouldn't mean the cause of their errors was the fact that they used vim.

[jamougha]

The tests are ineffective. That's because, as the article notes, unit tests - tests of single functions, with dependencies mocked - give very little confidence that code actually works. Problems usually appear in the relationships between parts.

And because they're tightly bound to the internal implementation of the code they test the tests often have to be rewritten when the code is rewritten.

Does this mean unit tests are bad? No. They way they're frequently used I believe they are bad, but you're correct that that wasn't the point I was making. I'm really commenting on the way that common wisdom pushes gimmicky methodologies but doesn't talk about the fundamentals of how to make code changes in an effective way.

[munk-a]

I agree with you then - there is nothing inherently beneficial from the quantity of unit or integration tests you have, the quality of the tests to accurately target specific edge/error cases is what makes them valuable.

As an aside I find TDD a particularly bad trend for these sorts of bad habits, TDD is a great idea in theory, but you'll often see TDD unit tests come out mimicking the code under test, i.e. "How to test if this function containing `return n + n ^ 2` is correct... well, let's generate some random numbers and then see if the output is equal to that random number plus it's square! That's like full coverage!" Having tests that duplicate the code under test is a pretty easy trap to fall into with micro-tests and it should make you suspicious of any test that covers a very small unit of code.

This is similar to a statistical problem involving over-fitted trend lines, you can construct a mathematical formula that can go through any number of arbitrary (X,Y) points, leading to an average deviance of 0, but this formula will probably break as soon as you take another sample.

[Udik]

> that wouldn't mean the cause of their errors was the fact that they used vim

But neither you would say that using vim is a metric of code quality. You might even discover that using vim or not is pretty much irrelevant.

[marcosdumay]

If what I've seen is any guide, the rewrite is pretty quick because the developer doing it is way more productive than the first one because he knows exactly where he is going and what needs to be done.