> My project has an extensive test suite that we rely on to make major design changes with alacrity, just exactly the way that unit-test advocates advocate. We couldn't dream of doing what we're doing without it.
My experiences are the same as yours. I've refactored code where the unit tests caught that the new structure introduced subtle logical inconsistencies in the program. The unit tests meant I caught this immediately; without them I would have had to wait until subtle and hard-to-fix bugs emerged.
On a different project, I've been able to play around with the structure of the code, secure in the knowledge that my regression test suite will tell me when I fuck things up.
Tests, when done well, are a lifesaver, and essential to any large complex codebase.
> But these are points that belong in a serious discussion, the kind that recognizes tradeoffs.
My experiences are the same as yours. I've refactored code where the unit tests caught that the new structure introduced subtle logical inconsistencies in the program. The unit tests meant I caught this immediately; without them I would have had to wait until subtle and hard-to-fix bugs emerged.
On a different project, I've been able to play around with the structure of the code, secure in the knowledge that my regression test suite will tell me when I fuck things up.
Tests, when done well, are a lifesaver, and essential to any large complex codebase.
> But these are points that belong in a serious discussion, the kind that recognizes tradeoffs.
Exactly.