[bombolo]

Ah yes I used to work at a california company as c++ developer.

There was no automated test whatsoever. QA department was just manually clicking things on a client that would connect to my c++ thing.

When I wrote a couple of unit tests I got told off because I was wasting time not doing features.

[jahewson]

Why waste time writing tests when you could be busy fixing bugs!?

[Remnant44]

Jokes on you, they probably didn't fix big either ;)

[bombolo]

Well the bug reports were like: "I clicked around and the UI froze/crashed"… no info on how to reproduce, no logs, nothing. Just that bit of information.

[ornornor]

So that’s what they teach in MBAs!

[theironhammer]

Best comment ever!

[sqeaky]

When was that? I am so glad that for the past 5~6 years every contract I have worked has had unit tests and for the past 10~12 every place has at least accepted their value.

The last time I actually had to argue for unit tests was in defense contracting and not for the team I was working on. Some idiot at a lunch-and-learn community thing tried to claim there was no short term gain from them and we had defined short term in months. He could not believe that unit tests can help the developer writing them and the help the team the very next sprint.

I hope he learned better or got forced out of tech.

[galangalalgol]

I have worked on codebases where full coverage was obtained using service level tests in a proper pipeline. If you couldn't add a service level test that got your pr coverage, then you were referred to yagni and told to stop doing stuff that wasn't part of your task. I was ok with that, it worked well, and the tests were both easier and faster to write. If the services had been too large maybe it would have fallen apart?

I have also worked on codebases where there were only tests at the level of collections of services. Those took too long to run to be useful. I want to push and see if I broke anything, not wait hours and hours. If a full system level test could complete in a few minutes I think I would be fine with that too. The key is checking your coverage to know you are testing stuff, and to write tests that matter. Coverage can be an antimetric.

[sqeaky]

> I have worked on codebases where full coverage was obtained using service level tests in a proper pipeline.

Sounds ideal to me. Add testing where it is cheap enough to justify, and maybe just a little more than you think you really need because they pay off so often.

If your mocks and fixtures get too big you might not be testing the code in question meaningfully.

Coverage and test quality/quantity need to scale with the associated risk. Perhaps "Flight planner for Air Force Weather" gets more testing than "Video game User Interface" and that's ok. Even in gaming, the engine team should have more tests than the game teams.

[DeathArrow]

If there are no unit tests, you can intentionally introduce some bugs, so you can have some easy fixes next sprint. Rinse and repeat.