News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on An External Replication on the Effects of Test-driven Development [pdf]. Parent comment

Re:An External Replication on the Effects of Test-driven Dev... by candiodari on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @11:50PM (#12740932)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:An External Replication on the Effects of Test-driven Dev... by flukus on Wednesday October 19, 2016 @12:56AM (#12741185)
> That means you can't use coverage tools, so this approach makes the tests unquantifiable.

So it's win win then ;)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:An External Replication on the Effects of Test-driven Dev... by brightball on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @11:54PM (#12740946)
It's been very YMMV in mine. For some things, it's indispensable. Others it's tedious, repetitive and of questionable benefit.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:An External Replication on the Effects of Test-driven Dev... by thingexplainer on Wednesday October 19, 2016 @12:26AM (#12741062)
It's tedious and repetitive even when the benefit is obvious and substantial, unfortunately.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:An External Replication on the Effects of Test-driven Dev... by candiodari on Saturday October 22, 2016 @12:23AM (#12767175)
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]