I don't write any unit tests. Instead, I only do integration/system tests.
At the end of the day, I need to know that the system works and does what it is suppose to do. Unit tests adds too much complexity in my opinion and isn't worth it.
At the end of the day, I need to know that the system works and does what it is suppose to do. Unit tests adds too much complexity in my opinion and isn't worth it.
I've seen some other definitions out there, but they didn't make any sense. Obviously someone was trolling in those cases. Presumably you were thinking of one of them? Absolutely you wouldn't write tests that don't make any sense. I am not sure why anyone would.
The term "unit test" has been used since the 1960's (if not earlier).
Beck is clear that he "rediscovered" the idea. People most certainly understood the importance of tests being isolated from each other in the 1960s. Is that, maybe, what you mean?
https://dl.acm.org/doi/epdf/10.1145/800195.805951
Quote:
"Unit test:
testing, outside of thesystem, of a part of the system thatmay have less than a complete function.
Component test:
testing, inside of the system, of parts that have been successfully unit tested.
Integration test: testing of new components to ensure that the system is growing functionally; in addition, retesting of successive system builds to ensure that they do not cause re-gression in the capabilities of the system.
Regression test: testing of the system for unpredictable system failure.
Scaffolding:
coding that replaces not - yet - completed functions..."
I was taught in the 80's about this by a woman that had worked at some company that was more formal about software dev than we were at the small company I worked for.