[jkubicek]

> In actual practice, about 99% of unit tests I see amount to "verifying that our code does what our code does" and are a useless waste of time and effort.

If you rephrase this as, "verifying that our code does what it did yesterday" these types of tests are useful. When I'm trying to add tests to previously untested code, this is usually how I start.

    1. Method outputs a big blob of JSON
    2. Write test to ensure that the output blob is always the same
    3. As you make changes, refine the test to be more focused and actionable

[DontchaKnowit]

The problem with this for me is that most of the time "verifying that our ccode does what it did yesterday" is not a useful condition : if you make no change to code, its going to do what it did yesterday. If you do make a change to the code, then you are probably intending for it to do something different, so now you have to change the test accordingly. It usually just means you have to make the same change in 2 different spots for every piece of unit-tested code you want to change.

[jkubicek]

> If you do make a change to the code, then you are probably intending for it to do something different, so now you have to change the test accordingly. It usually just means you have to make the same change in 2 different spots for every piece of unit-tested code you want to change.

Sure, but that's how unit-tested code works in general.

[randomdata]

> then you are probably intending for it to do something different

If you have decided that your software is going to do something different, you probably want to deprecate the legacy functionality to give the users some time to adapt, not change how things work from beneath them. If you eventually remove what is deprecated, the tests can be deleted along with it. There should be no need for them to change except maybe in extreme circumstances (e.g. a feature under test has a security vulnerability that necessitates a breaking change).

If you are testing internal implementation details, where things are likely to change often... Don't do that. It's not particularly useful. Test as if you are the user. That is what you want to be consistent and well documented.

[pixl97]

Then think of the unit test as the safety interlock.

[HideousKojima]

I had to migrate some ancient VB.NET code to .NET 6+ and C#. The code outputs a text file, and I needed to nake sure the new output matched the old output. I could have written some sort of test program that would have been roughly equal in length to what I was rewriting to verify that any change I made didn't affect the output, and to verify that the internal data was the same at each stage. Or... I could just output the internal state st various points and the final output to files and compare them directly. I chose the latter, and it saved me far more work than writing tests.

If I need to verify that my code works the same as it did yesterday, I can just compare the output of today's code to the output of yesterday's code.

[jkubicek]

I see two advantages in creating tests to check output

    1. You did the work to generate consistent output from the code as a whole, plus output intermediate steps. Writing those into a test lets future folks make use of the same tests.
    2. Having the tests in place prevents people from making changes that accidentally change the output

Don't get me wrong, tests that just compare two large blobs of output aren't fun to work with, but they _can_ be useful, and are an OK intermediate stage while you get proper unit tests written.