Tests are a way to judge what it does. It does the judging for you, ensuring features work as advertised, and provide usage examples that are guaranteed to work.

They are also boring as fuck and assume no talent for a project of this scope.

Speak for yourself... that's quite the generalization. I'm a programmer, and I care when something doesn't have tests, especially if it's my own code.

While this is true for you and me, this isn't true for a huge number of developers.

So I should wait until stuff starts breaking, then start complaining.

Yeah.

I am glad that this approach works for you but I am not brave enough to use a new library without a single test.

I guess this project isn't for you then.

Well I would use it, but I wouldn't contribute, because I write all my code in a test driven programming way. AFAIK Chuck Norris writes the code first, never the test.

If nothing breaks why would you complain?

It's not a question of wether something might break, it's a question of when will it break and how long a new introduced bug might be undetcted, that could have easily detected by some tests? Bugs always happen in projects, if someone says otherwise, he either proved his program to be correct (e.g. in COQ) or is wrong (and sometimes both :).

In that case, I wouldn't. But I believe that it will happen eventually, this is not a 10lines project, has many lines of code and since it's new, I expect a lot to be changed. Then those changes are going to break features.

If you are worried about them breaking it as they develop it, but like the current implementation then just use the current implementation.

If you feel like having tests are a blocking feature for you then just watch this issue: https://github.com/frappe/charts/issues/7