←back to thread

449 points bertman | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.429s | source
Show context
bertman ◴[] No.29702169[source]
The repos: https://github.com/widevinedump?tab=repositories
replies(1): >>29702805 #
sovietmudkipz ◴[] No.29702805[source]
I don’t know why but for some reason I was hopeful to see unit tests in any of the repos. Searching “test” for that user doesn’t reveal any tests. :(

Even the digital property liberators/internet pirates don’t test their software. I feel like I’m on an island with a small population of test enthusiasts.

replies(4): >>29703006 #>>29703066 #>>29703153 #>>29703226 #
unbanned ◴[] No.29703066[source]
>Even the digital property liberators/internet pirates don’t test their software. I feel like I’m on an island with a small population of test enthusiasts.

Ultimately, what's the point. The tool either works, or it doesn't. Then you patch what doesn't work so it does work.

Heck even the Linux kernel isn't tested.

Unit tests are so management can have a good metric to sell code quality. I don't know any time unit testing has actually benefited shipping faster (which really is the only bottom line those above you care about)

replies(7): >>29703319 #>>29703455 #>>29703460 #>>29703579 #>>29703591 #>>29703662 #>>29703696 #
1. danuker ◴[] No.29703319[source]
My experience: running a unit test is much faster than a manual test.

While developing a feature or fixing a bug, it speeds you up overall, in spite of the initial investment in writing the test.

As a bonus, you can keep them running permanently, to prevent new bugs or regressions.

replies(1): >>29703877 #
2. horsawlarway ◴[] No.29703877[source]
And the test covers much less surface area than most manual tests.

For code that's expected to be stable for a LONG time - sure, write lots of good tests.

For code that breaks at someone else's whim, which has a small shelf life, or which has a large surface area, think really, really hard about whether the test is actually going to be worth it.