It is impractical to cover every line of code with tests (it would get too expensive). Futhermore, in this case the author would have to test production config interacting with Amazon servers rather than a piece of code.

And even 100% code coverage doesn't find all possible errors.

Do you need to cover every _line_ of code, or do you need to test resulting behavior? Also, while nothing is 100% foolproof, the example here would probably have been caught.

I doubt this, a unit test wouldn't have covered the infinite triggering of the created events

> because of a refactor, I forgot the return statement and it just continued overwriting the file again

Unit tests are specifically useful for refactors. You can refactor your code and ensure that it behaves as intended. Integration tests are great, too, don't get me wrong. Either or both would have probably caught this.

this was a problem involving multiple parts, unit tests normally don't catches this. You need an integration/functional test and that can be much more time consuming to write for all "integrations" and code paths.

It was a single function that changed behavior after a refactoring. It did work where it did not need to, because the work was already done on the object. This is only hard if you don't test at all and can't already mock the object download/upload or don't have pure functions.

In this case it might have helped, I didn't read the code, but in a more general case these kind of things are rarely found by unit tests. I still doubt that the triggering caused by the file change would have been found in a unit test.

Down vote for advocating for unit tests? That's just good practice in general.

I think integration tests would be more appropriate here, especially since there are different co-operating moving parts: S3 <--> EC2/Lambda.