Unit tests #327
Draft
Unit tests #327
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Generally speaking I'm all in favor of unit tests. There's just a lot to unpack here. |
Unfortunately, there is. In my experience, unit tests are a lot less useful when they require a lot of maintenance to just keep working and I suspect this is the case here. Just having to keep I'll probably come back to it at some point and try to simplify the build. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Starting with "I'd like to write a bunch of unit tests to be sure it works as I expected", I ended up having to do a LOT of changes just to have the existing ~50 unit tests to run and be able to add a few more.
I'd definitely like a simpler approach that need less changes but couldn't find one.
If this ends up merged I'll have a bunch more tests on the way to make it a bit more relevant but now that I have it running I'm not 100% convinced it's worth the trouble.
Some of those changes (mainly 741e741) might well break something elsewhere and I didn't even bother to test it past the "it compiles" phase because that's beyond the point until we agree if this should move forward or not.
What do you think @gjcope ?