[kennethtilton]

Granted I am reading between the lines, but I think the OP was indeed concerned that this great new team he found was not a member of the TDD cult. As i just threaded separately, they equated testing with automated testing, and that set of my cult alarm.

[dootdoot]

as the actual OP, I can definitely say I wasn't talking about TDD. I mean integration tests like "Hey, we aren't double charging this person" or tests to make sure that bugs stay fixed. It doesn't matter to me if you write tests before or after the fact, you just should be testing so you can have some sort of sense of correctness.

[kennethtilton]

That's fine. My point was that for you automated testing is a litmus test that turned you against a successful group of great guys. What I do in those situations is check my presuppositions. Maybe I can learn something.

Did you ask them about their practice? Did you ask how often they had to roll back deployments, or at least take a hit on something automated testing would have caught?

[dootdoot]

That makes sense. I've found automated testing to be incredibly useful and just necessary to be able to really rework code well. Not using automated testing and having a really fast release cycle seems like a recipe for a lot of pain (and they said that testing was taking them forever).

I asked them about their testing - turns out they were looking to have someone help them develop a way to test their software (so at least they want to do it).

I wish I'd asked them the two questions you listed at the end, they are much better questions than a bland "do you test?". They did break the build some times.

[kennethtilton]

Oh. They actually want to step up their testing game? So why this thread? <g>

btw, I am glad no one asked the alternative to testing -- it would have been more a textbook on software development. <g>