[shimman]

Is that suppose to make this better? IME the most valuable tests are those that test specific regressions. It's the scaffolding we build for ourselves to enable feature development. Remove that scaffolding and you get accidents. Pray to your god of choice these accidents don't cause harm or loss of life.

It should really be considered negligence at this point. Some of this software is extremely valuable, it's how we flourish as humans. Purposely fucking with that should bear some real world consequence. We do the same in every other industry, software is just as important too.

[abuob]

In my perspective, "Analyze code, come up with edge cases and gaps and create unit tests for them" is one of the use-cases where AI was starting to get really good at, so I can see why someone would want to extend their test-suite dramatically using it.

But yes, using AI to then generate code that still causes regressions doesn't quite square with that. Given the huge amount of test-changes I'd still assume good faith by the maintainer; possibly just a bit of overexcitement paired with a dash of too much confidence into the new tools that is now hitting reality.

[scared_together]

> Is that suppose to make this better?

When I first saw the 26k changes statistic I was shocked. It made me think a large chunk of code running on people’s machines was AI-generated.

But the knowledge that a lot of the changes might be testsuite changes made me change my perspective. If for instance 25k of the changes were test changes and only 1k of the changes actually affected the .so and other artifacts used downstream, that would be a lot less dramatic.

I haven’t reviewed the code, only the messages, so I don’t know if these changes were removing or adding test cases. And there are a minority of Claude-assisted changes which are not listed as tests.

[ncruces]

Taken at face value, most commit descriptions mention adding - not skipping - tests and assertions.

So basically, we're all in our high horses, not reviewing code, scalding the unpaid maintainer for … not reviewing code.

Time for - whoever actually cares - to do better.

[ornornor]

I hear you, OTOH if this software was so valuable how come we aren’t funding it? A lot of the world runs on OSS with a coupe overwhelmed maintainers who get treated as if they owed everybody working software yet can’t make a living off it.

[shimman]

We should fund it. Go read the types of comments I make in my profile. I always advocate for explicitly taxing big tech to publicly fund open source development.

Also it's why we need to pass things like medicare for all and universal childcare to give workers some breathing room if they want to change jobs/industries without condemning them to death or poverty.