50
Who have you known that was extremely good at a job no one wants?
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
50 points (96.3% liked)
Asklemmy
43027 readers
1667 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Wish we had more like you in the industry. It's a skill to write non-brittle non-trivial tests but surely it's not actually as difficult as the results indicate?
I think it rubs people the wrong way because (though it looks like code) in some sense it is not programming... it's like the negative image of a program... like a mold or specification-box that contains and fits around the code, which reverses several key principles.
It also can highlight if the code needs to be moved or reorganized, and let me tell you... the LAST thing that devs want is to interpret the struggle to write a unit test as a sign the code needs rework, they would MUCH rather keep unit tests as an after-thought; like some kind of mandated torture-ritual that produces a thing of no value.
Speaking of not valuing tests... I've literally seen devs blithely invert test assertions (that where clearly valid), those that made sense in context, and even some that were PART OF THE TEST'S NAME... just to brush the "meaningless failures" out of their way... as if they could not be bothered to even read one sentence to understand the "why"... uggh.
Anyway, I digress and ramble. If you really want more of me in the industry, I can provide one more! If you happen to know of any teams that need a professional-unit-testing-developer, I'm recently on the market! :)
Pre-merge code review should stop that kind of thing. I honestly haven't seen anything like this in years.
Many code-reviewers likewise devalue tests, giving only a cursory skim over the unit-test section of PRs, if they examine them at all, and sometimes code-review itself is devalued to the point of a rubber-stamp (e.g. "great, we need someone from team X to approve it too... doesn't matter who, though...").
If I could tell you, you would be SHOCKED at how high-profile and recent this sordid project was; it's literally in the news and discussed in my podcasts.