Jean Louis <[email protected]> writes: > * Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide <[email protected]> [2026-03-29 16:13]: >> Jean Louis <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > * Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide <[email protected]> [2026-03-29 12:58]: >> >> > True certainty can be obtained by testing functions and seeing if they >> >> > are doing what is meant to be. >> >> >> >> 1. That’s only true if the tests are completely exhaustive. Which very >> >> likely makes them a lot longer than the code itself. >> > >> > Same for human code. >> > >> >> 2. Who reviews that exhaustive test code? >> > >> > I am used to making functions small and making sure they work. Each >> > programmer deals with this in their own way. >> --snip the rest that’s not about reviewing code-- >> >> Does this mean the answer is "no one"? > > Cannot know what you mean as "no one" here. Maybe you are asking if > "no one" reviews exhaustive test code.
I mean: if *you* have exhaustive test code, who reads it? > I am testing it this way, by arguing: > > - Did you test all CRUD functions? > - search for DKR (to test R in CRUD) > - testing Delete can only be done on the object you create, don't delete > others > > Then I can see extensive tests being done, flowing faster on screen > then I can verify it, but I can see when there is success or failure. So you never read the tests, you often just look at the outputs? As a consequence: you don’t know what it actually tests (in the code)? If so, you cannot know whether you actually have exhaustive tests. All you know is that you have many functions that do something. Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein, ohne es zu merken. https://www.draketo.de
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)
