[taeric]

You know what has a high chance of introducing a crap ton more bugs? Unnecessary code. :)

Also, did you read the rest of the post? Typical test cycles are much faster than that. But a full test of the entire system takes some time. As it should.

This is also why the test suite for git takes a long time, but has a very good signal to noise ratio.

[jafaku]

> You know what has a high chance of introducing a crap ton more bugs? Unnecessary code. :)

If only that "unnecessary code" had tests... Oh wait.

[taeric]

At some point, you will find you have bugs in the tests. It isn't like that code is magically immune to mistakes.

Not to mention you have increased the workload of everyone just to mitigate the impact of additional code. Let me know how that works out for you. :)

[jafaku]

Slightly more complex code with tests beats code with no tests every time, and it works just fine. Having 1 more class or function call is not exactly what makes an impact on workload. If you are optimizing your application by reducing function calls you are doing it wrong. But tell me, how does not having tests work out for you? Can you modify old applications, or applications that you didn't develop alone, with a high degree of certainty that you didn't break things in the least expected places?

[taeric]

At no point was it declared there were no tests. So... different topic?

Seriously, straw men not withstanding, this thread is specifically about tested code where a complaint was raised about how long the tests take. And the "how long" was only 4 friggin minutes for a full suite, or 4 seconds for a module.