Hacker News Reader

Comment by radicalbyte | Hacker News Reader

Spot on.

Unit Tests aren't there to ensure that you get the right answer. It's there to ensure that you've asked the right question.

Or at the very least to document the thought process of the person implementing code.

Use static analysis tools + code reviews to improve correctness, and unit tests to guide design + document.

View on HN

Unit tests aren't for asking the right question. There code is there and readable (hopefully) so that shouldn't be an issue. Unit tests are there to ensure when you need to make a change you don't include a regression (moving code backwards). Missed something that the function was previously doing.

They aren't useless and have a clear place in testing. Unit tests alone can't guarantee a fully tested system, but they minimize engineer error when working on various pieces of a code base, but this is predicated on cleanly separated and testable code pieces.

Can't you both be right? Another facet: unit tests are the living, useful documentation of the code. Starting on a team with a large legacy code base, unit tests are the tutorial on the best practices of the API. This magnified if the "unit" tests include full functional test with an embeddable container (eg. OpenEJB).

(apologies for parroting the gp)

Code is never readable. The "self-documenting code" mantra can only be applied to edge cases and toy problems. This is simply because the human brain is really bad at reading code. The level of abstraction optimal for human consumption is so high that reading precise instructions is a pain.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com