Garrett Smith 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
Selenium's "waitForCondition")

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 mailing list