• (cs)

    Classic WTF from 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013...

  • Brendan (unregistered) in reply to Devil's Advocate
    Devil's Advocate:
    The test still exists in Version Control if we ever need it again. I say remove.

    I agree - removing version control is required to sustain an adequate level of plausible deniability.

  • Thaddaeus (unregistered) in reply to Inspired

    This year, I resolve to spend less time striving to remove the failing tests from my life, and more time striving to remove the fail.

  • (cs)

    This is why you need unit tests for your unit tests. Just don't cross the unit tests...

  • Peyote Short (unregistered) in reply to Inspired

    Yes, minimize your therbligs.

  • whocares (unregistered) in reply to Matt Westwood
    Matt Westwood:
    The Mole:
    The failing test could of course just be garbage and/or redundant and so it could be valid just to remove it. Whether it is a WTF depends on what discussions happened in the planning game.

    There is absolutely no justification for this. What you got to do is fix the test so it is relevant. If it's redundant then it wont fail. If it's garbage then fix it so it's not.

    That's cute...is this your first week on the job?

  • nasch (unregistered) in reply to asdfg
    Since a large part of what you are doing with unit tests is to catch regressions neither of these are valid IMO. Sure they pass now, but when someone makes a change 2 years from now that breaks long last names you will be happy you still have the unit test.

    You keep obsolete unit tests around in case they later become relevant again? Do you also write unit tests that are meaningless now, but could become useful if the requirements change in the future?

  • Erin (unregistered)

    Thats isnt a wtf unless more context is provided. I have a few shorthand tasks like rhat on my board but it doesnt mean literally taking out the malfunctioning test unless its already outdated by a new requirement.

  • (cs)

    It sounds like a lot of people here do unit tests last. I tend to do them first, so I know when the functionality fits the design. Of course, they are also iterative, but keeping them until the end just means that you're going to have a bias to design them towards the desired result instead of the spec.

  • (cs)

    Really the only real "WTF" is when a failing test breaks "the build", that being where it's "all or nothing" and if one little meaningless test of one meaningless feature fails it is like the end of the world and nothing is allowed to progress.

    Anyway, better would be to write on the post-it note "not a bug, it's a feature".

Leave a comment on “Productive Testing”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article