• BatmanAoD
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The one part of that that sounds weird to me is needing to change integration tests frequently when changing the code. Were you changing the behavior of existing functionality a lot?

    • Elderos@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, and the test suites were insane. The program was outputting a lot of data, and we basically asserted on anything and everything for any given integration. I mentioned that testing wasn’t the only issue, well there was a lot of issues. Unfortunately the behaviour changes were requested by the stakeholders and there was no way around it. That being said, had this thing we maintained been properly developed those changes would have been a breeze imo. The actual requirements were very simple.

      But anyway, I realize this is maybe an extreme example to paint integration tests negatively, but the point remain. In this scenario, every time we changed a bit of code it broke dozens of integration tests instead of breaking just a relevant integration test, had everything that could have been unit tested been written that way. The integration tests could probably also had been less… exhaustive, but it was probably for the best considering the codebase.