Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

There are so many bugs that I've caught in code review that would not have been caught by automated or manual testing. Two big reasons for that:

1. Automated testing is still written by a human. A human who doesn't understand the edge cases in their code isn't going to understand how to write tests for those edge cases either. And "have someone else write the tests" won't work either, because frequently these edge cases are a result of the code implementation, not inherent in the problem, and so without a thorough understanding of the code you wouldn't even know the edge cases is there to be tested. Same goes for manual testing too, the manual testcases are still constructed by a human.

2. Race conditions, or rare conditions that most people won't hit. These are rather unlikely to be uncovered by testing (whether automated or manual). Race conditions in general are hard to test, and rare conditions are, well, rare.

There's also just cases like unexpected interaction paths that can produce improperly-handled states in the code, or bugs that don't result in an obvious bug to the observer but are still incorrect (the obvious example here is memory leaks, but this could also just be leaving the app in a bad state such that subsequent actions would fail, but you don't catch those because your test is done at this point).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: