this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
1393 points (98.5% liked)

Programmer Humor

32725 readers
64 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SrTobi@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

And then in the end we realize the most important thing was the tests we wrote along the way.

[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

Lmao, I just had something similar

[–] redcalcium@lemmy.institute 2 points 1 year ago

This is why you write the tests first before the actual code.

[–] sebsch@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Meaning your tests where to complex.

[–] Speculater@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I always name my tests too complex 🥲.

[–] Alph4d0g@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've seen some interesting thoughts on TDD with fail, pass, refactor assumptions. I'm curious if anyone here is writing functional code in order to then make a failing functional test pass i.e. BDD / ATDD. This follows similar logic without the refactor assumption. I've seen strong opinions on every side as far as this is concerned. On a team with Dev and QA competencies, I've heard a number of devs glad to get QA out of the bottleneck and put their knowledge to better use.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] steeznson@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

ChatGPT go brrrrrr

[–] toastal@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

If you use your type system to make invalid states impossible to represent & your functions are pure, there less—maybe nothing—to test, which will save you from this scenario.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›