40% of the code GitHub Copilot users check-in is AI generated and unmodified

Re:40% of the code GitHub Copilot users check-in is AI gener... by dandellion on Tuesday March 14, 2023 @09:52PM (#35162674)

In my case about 50% of the test code is just boilerplate, so I usually type the test name and generate the rest. Most of the time I have to rewrite the actual test logic (although very trivial tests are sometimes correct), but I probably keep more than 40% if we're talking tests specifically.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:40% of the code GitHub Copilot users check-in is AI gener... by paro_nej on Tuesday March 14, 2023 @10:09PM (#35162800)

> In my case about 50% of the test code is just boilerplate

Why not replace it with a function call?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:40% of the code GitHub Copilot users check-in is AI gener... by travisjungroth on Tuesday March 14, 2023 @10:15PM (#35162845)

A common occurrence is something like a pool of 10 actions where a bunch of tests each do 3 to 7 of them. This is very hard to abstract with a function call.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:40% of the code GitHub Copilot users check-in is AI gener... by aaomidi on Tuesday March 14, 2023 @10:12PM (#35162828)

Some languages are just noisy.

Go, Java I’ve experienced are noisier than others.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:40% of the code GitHub Copilot users check-in is AI gener... by lupire on Tuesday March 14, 2023 @11:39PM (#35163524)

That makes the test harder to read. Tests should be dumb.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:40% of the code GitHub Copilot users check-in is AI gener... by dandellion on Wednesday March 15, 2023 @09:33PM (#35177060)

In the case I was referring to, mainly to keep the code consistent with what was already there and the PRs small, as the code base is primarily owned by a different team. It's also pretty innocuous short tests that read well as they are.

[ Parent | on HN ]