[rooam-dev]

I couldn't tell if this is a joke or for real.

My 2 cents regarding testing. Written tests have 2 goals, 1: help to build your code (you verify your code as you write it). 2: Regression testing (new changes have less chances to break your code).

We as devs need to hand over/deploy a verified code. Without tests this means manual testing, without manual testing means not verified code. Manual testing means slow development process.

It's 2020, I think we have more time writing tests than before with all those cool IDEs, tools, frameworks. No tests means laziness and/or cockiness. Imho of course.

[collyw]

> you verify your code as you write it

That's what you do tests or no tests. Write some code, go to the browser, check it works (assuming it's a web app). I don't think even the most undisciplined of developers just writes code and assume that it works.

>Manual testing means slow development process.

I don't think its necessarily slower, in fact initially it is faster, which is why so many places don't have much in the way of tests. Much of this depends on the size and scope of your project.

I have worked on systems with lots of tests and systems with next to no tests. The tested systems were not "better", they still contained bugs and poor abstractions. The regression tests were useful, but the team required to maintain them was even bigger than the development team.

One thing that doesn't get discussed is that tests provide a way to run bits of code independent of the rest of the (probably over complicated) system. The last two places I have worked, getting a dev environment set up to run the application took a couple of days work at least.

[Jtsummers]

> Write some code, go to the browser, check it works (assuming it's a web app).

That's a test. It's called manual testing, and in reasonable organizations there'd be a list of what test actions (as a checklist, often) should be done in this fashion.

[rooam-dev]

The problems I see with "open your browser" for quick testing: 1. it's short gain, the team will be slower (will they know how to test it?) 2. how much code needs to be written so that you can even use the browser to test it?

[afandian]

> I don't think even the most undisciplined of developers just writes code and assume that it works.

What does 'works' mean? Implements this narrow bit of functionality / change? Or doesn't break all the other features it's piled on top of?

It's not a question so much of whether a developer thinks they're testing, so much as what they're trying to achieve.

[collyw]

The same as writing a test that "passes". It appears to do what is expected for the set of inputs given.

[afarrell]

> help to build your code

Some tests should exist as scaffolding while you are working on a project and then you can throw them out afterwards.