[sokoloff]

I think most people test at least a happy path of their code end to end. I think we can all agree that your last sentence is far more aspirational than bare minimum standard practice. (“I believe we should be spending our energy thoroughly manually testing a feature to make sure when we brainstormed we actually did get every edge case, and it works well.”)

I did one small side web project by only writing spec tests and prompts and testing the results in a browser, never reading nor editing a single line of generated code. It was something for home and so low stakes, but it worked remarkably well and was much better tested than the typical 2022-era home project of mine.

[khasan222]

My last sentence is definitely aspirational, it is how I try and go about it, but for sure I make mistakes. However your comments about writing spec tests was interesting to me.

Honestly I don’t even write tests manually because of coverage checks. Being that the coverage check is not something easily manipulated, I always tell the ai, don’t ever change configs, and make the coverage pass whatever I set it to, most times > 95%. I just tell the AI, make this coverage pass.

I find tremendous success with this technique, or anytime really I can find an objective way for the ai to test its work.

[gcr]

What does “much better tested” mean to you?

If you don’t read the tests to check they confer your intent or specifications, they’re more like tautologies than tests, you know?

[sokoloff]

I don't understand the comment.

I wrote the tests. That was how I expressed the spec and my intentions.

[gcr]

Ah. Most Claude users let Claude write their tests for them and I assumed you were too. Sorry.