That means you can't use coverage tools, so this approach makes the tests unquantifiable. It is not how most major dev shops work, because of the bean counters and the "senior" developers/leads/managers/... who seem to want nothing but appeasing beancounters.

It also produces superior software in my experience.

> That means you can't use coverage tools, so this approach makes the tests unquantifiable.

So it's win win then ;)

It's been very YMMV in mine. For some things, it's indispensable. Others it's tedious, repetitive and of questionable benefit.

It's tedious and repetitive even when the benefit is obvious and substantial, unfortunately.

Automatic test generation tools. There's quite a few on github, but the real ones are the ones you write yourself. What you're looking to do is to run the software a few times and record tests for particular pieces of code during those manual tests.