dhtmlkitchen at gmail.com
Sun Aug 17 13:30:45 PDT 2008
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Neil Mix <nmix at pandora.com> wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2008, at 8:02 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
> It's all about time spent. A large app is impossible for a new-hire
> programmer to comprehend end-to-end. We mitigate this by using unit
> tests as a safety barrier, but over time our tests have grown to take
> about 10 minutes or so to run.
A test *suite* with a lot of asynchronous testing could potentially
take 10 min to run. The test runner could probably be modified to
allow it to continue when async callbacks come back sooner (e.g
A test *case* should normally run in under one second.
A new feature/change shouldn't have many dependencies; it should be
simple to unit test.
> That's way too long to wait for a
> pesky misspelling bug.
I could see how autocomplete could use typed programs to provide
warnings (squiggly red underline).
> To the extent that there's static type
> checking available to catch errors early on, it's a huge productivity
> gain. (Although not necessarily one that's easily noticed -- one tends
> not to see the problems that grow and kill slowly.)
The compiler is not a substitute for unit tests.
More information about the Es-discuss