[SoftwareMaven]

I disagree that there is no benefit in passing tests that don't change your behavior. Those tests are markers to prevent you from unknowingly doing something that should have changed your behavior. That is where the nuance enters: is this a marker I want to lay down or not? Some markers should be there; others absolutely should not and just introduce noise.

[ejames]

I don't understand what you mean by "prevent you from unknowingly doing something that should have changed your behavior". If you do something without knowing it, how could it change your behavior? If it's a case where you should have changed your behavior, why would you prevent it?

[xianshou]

I believe the above comment refers to regression testing. For instance, if I write a test for an invariant that is fairly unlikely to change, then the chance that my behavior will change in the next hour based on the test run is small. However, if and when the invariant is mistakenly changed, even though negative side effects might not be immediately visible, it could be immensely valuable to me to see the flaw and restore that invariant.

[ejames]

Yes - but the test would fail when the invariant is mistakenly changed. On the test run after the invariant was changed, you would get new information (the test does not always pass) and change your behavior (revert the commit which altered the invariant).

That is the point of the "changing behavior" rule - you do not gather the benefit of running a test until it has failed at least once, and the benefit gathered is proportionate to the benefit of the action you take upon seeing the failure. The tricky part of the rule is that you must predict your actions in the future, since a test that might have a very important failure later could pass all the time right now. Knowing your own weaknesses and strengths is important, as is knowing the risks of your project.

There are possible design benefits to writing tests, since you must write code that is testable, and testable code tends to also be modular. However, once you have written testable code, you still gain those design benefits even if you never run your test suite, or even delete your tests entirely!

[SoftwareMaven]

Your comment reads like you can know when a test will fail in the future (how else can you know the difference between a test that "always passes" and a test that will fail in the future to identify a regression?). You may have a test that passes for ten years. When do you know it's OK to nuke the test?

Based on your follow-up, it is clear that my reading was not what you intended.

[ejames]

You can't know, but you can guess, based on past experience or logic. The simplest way to estimate the future is to guess that it will be similar to the past.

For example, if you personally tend to write off-by-one errors a lot, it's a good idea to write tests which check that. On the other hand, if you almost never write off-by-one errors, you can skip those tests. If test is cheap to write, easy to investigate, and covers a piece of code that would cause catastrophic problems if it failed, it's worthwhile to write the test even if you can barely imagine a possible situation where it would fail - the degree of the cost matters as much as the degree of the benefit.

You don't "know" when it's OK to nuke a test just as you don't really "know" when it's safe to launch a product - you decide what you're doing based on experience, knowledge, and logic. The important step many don't take is developing the ability to distinguish between good tests and bad tests, rather than simply having an opinion on testing in general.

[xianshou]

Re: "The simplest way to estimate the future is to guess that it will be similar to the past."

When we say that the future will be similar to the past, for code, we really mean that the probability of certain events occurring in the future will be similar to their prior probability of occurring in the past.

In my hypothetical example of testing an invariant that is unlikely to fail but damaging if it does, it might be valuable to keep that test around for five years even if it never fails. Imagine that the expected frequency of failure was initially <once per ten years>, and that the test hasn't failed after five years. If the expected frequency of failure, cost of failure, and gain from fixing a failure remain the same, we should keep the test even if it's never failed: the expected benefit is constant.

Not to say that we should test for every possible bug, but if something is important enough in the first place to test for it, and that doesn't change (as calculated by expected benefit minus expected cost of maintenance), we should keep the test whether or not it changes our behavior.

Thus, if we could estimate probabilities correctly, we really would know when it's OK to nuke a test.