Timeline for Is there such a thing as having too many unit tests?

Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0

16 events

when toggle format	what		by	license	comment
Jul 5, 2023 at 12:47	history	edited	Persixty	CC BY-SA 4.0	added 3 characters in body
May 8, 2017 at 14:27	history	edited	Persixty	CC BY-SA 3.0	added 192 characters in body
May 5, 2017 at 17:17	history	edited	Persixty	CC BY-SA 3.0	added 145 characters in body
May 5, 2017 at 13:21	history	edited	Persixty	CC BY-SA 3.0	added 76 characters in body
May 5, 2017 at 8:48	history	edited	Persixty	CC BY-SA 3.0	added 35 characters in body
May 4, 2017 at 10:09	history	edited	Persixty	CC BY-SA 3.0	added 1050 characters in body
May 4, 2017 at 7:13	history	edited	Persixty	CC BY-SA 3.0	added 48 characters in body
May 3, 2017 at 19:00	history	edited	Persixty	CC BY-SA 3.0	deleted 18 characters in body
May 3, 2017 at 18:49	history	edited	Persixty	CC BY-SA 3.0	deleted 18 characters in body
May 3, 2017 at 18:19	history	edited	Persixty	CC BY-SA 3.0	added 10 characters in body
May 3, 2017 at 18:19	comment	added	Persixty		@FrankHileman The question wasn't "Is unit testing a good substitute for designing software carefully, static checking logic and proving algorithms" then the answer is 'no'. Neither method will produce high-quality software on their own.
May 3, 2017 at 18:11	comment	added	Persixty		@BryanOakley Point taken. That's an overstatement. But it is more important to get close to it than people give credit. "I tested the easy path it's all good" is always going to cause problems later.
May 3, 2017 at 18:08	history	edited	Persixty	CC BY-SA 3.0	added 73 characters in body
May 3, 2017 at 18:07	comment	added	Frank Hileman		Unfortunately even the randomized method can miss errors. There is no substitute for proofs, even if informal.
May 3, 2017 at 17:58	comment	added	Bryan Oakley		I wouldn't say that 100% coverage is pragmatic. 100% coverage is an extremely high standard.
May 3, 2017 at 17:54	history	answered	Persixty	CC BY-SA 3.0

toggle format