If you already know there’s an error , a weaker test can be more useful than a stronger test, because it localizes where the bug is more. If you’re trying to determine correctness , though, stronger tests are better. I wonder if there’s a way to speed up test suites using this. If P is stronger than Q, there’s no point to running Q if P already passed.
I also wonder if this gives us a way of formalizing “integration test”. It’s not clear what distinguishes a “unit” from an “integration” test, but I think any good categorization would have a single integration test imply a set of weaker unit tests.
Some tests are stronger than others
from Hillel Wayne ✉️
Filed under:
Related Notes
- By replacing integration tests with unit tests, we're losing al...from Computer Things
- Inside-Out and Outside-In are fairly rare terms, more often I have ...from Software Engineering Stack Exchange
- the difference between recoverable errors and bugs: • A recovera...from joeduffyblog.com
- Dealing with Error: • Put the knowledge required to operate the te...from Don Norman
- Poka-yoke is another Japanese method, this one invented by Shigeo S...from Don Norman
- Errors have two major forms. Slips occur when the goal is correct, ...from Don Norman
- TDD/FP/Agile zealots are probably zealots because adopting TDD/FP/A...from buttondown.email
- Although we generally prefer tolerating faults over preventing faul...from Martin Kleppmann