单元测试的一个好处是，它们可以作为说明代码行为方式的文档。好的测试有点像参考实现，团队成员可以通过查看它们来了解如何将他们的代码与您的代码集成。

单元测试的全部意义在于使测试变得简单。这是自动的。“make test”就完成了。如果您面临的问题之一是难以测试代码，那么这就是使用单元测试的最佳理由。

最好的说服方式是……找到一个bug，为它写一个单元测试，修复这个bug。

这个特定的错误不太可能再次出现，您可以通过测试来证明它。

如果你做得足够多，其他人很快就会明白。

你想说服谁?工程师还是经理?如果你试图说服你的工程师同事，我认为你最好的办法是迎合他们的愿望，让他们做出高质量的软件。有许多研究表明，它能发现漏洞，如果他们关心做好工作，这对他们来说就足够了。

如果您试图说服管理层，您将很可能不得不做一些成本/收益推理，说明未检测到的缺陷的成本大于编写测试的成本。一定要把不可转化的成本也包括在内，比如失去客户的信心等等。

测试驱动开发中经常被忽略的一个主要部分是可测试代码的编写。乍一看，这似乎是一种妥协，但您会发现可测试代码最终也是模块化的、可维护的和可读的。 如果你仍然需要说服别人，这是一个关于单元测试优点的简单演示。

如果你正在使用NUnit，一个简单而有效的演示就是在他们面前运行NUnit自己的测试套件。看到一个真正的测试套件对代码库进行测试，胜过千言万语……

当您手动测试软件时，通常会使用一小组测试/操作。最终，您将自动修改输入数据或操作，以便围绕已知问题进行导航。应该有单元测试来提醒您某些事情不能正常工作。

我建议在编写代码之前编写测试，添加新的测试/数据来改进主代码的功能!

作为一名物理专业的学生，我非常有动力去证明我的代码是可以正常工作的。您可以从逻辑上证明这一点，随着实现变得更加复杂，难度会急剧增加，或者您可以通过良好的测试对功能进行(尽可能接近的)经验证明。

如果不提供函数的逻辑证明，就必须进行测试。唯一的选择是说“我认为代码可以工作....”

如果您现有的代码库本身不适合单元测试，并且它已经处于生产环境中，那么通过试图重构所有代码以使其具有单元可测试性，您可能会产生比解决更多的问题。

您最好将精力放在改进集成测试上。有很多代码在没有单元测试的情况下编写起来更简单，如果QA可以根据需求文档验证功能，那么就完成了。船。

在我的脑海中，最经典的例子就是嵌入到GridView的ASPX页面中的SqlDataReader。代码都在ASPX文件中。SQL位于存储过程中。你做什么单元测试?如果页面做了它应该做的事情，那么是否真的应该将其重新设计成几个层，以便实现自动化?

One of the best things about unit testing is that your code will become easier to test as you do it. Preexisting code created without tests is always a challenge because since they weren't meant to be unit-tested, it's not rare to have a high level of coupling between classes, hard-to-configure objects inside your class - like an e-mail sending service reference - and so on. But don't let this bring you down! You'll see that your overall code design will become better as you start to write unit-tests, and the more you test, the more confident you'll become on making even more changes to it without fear of breaking you application or introducing bugs.

There are several reasons to unit-test your code, but as time progresses, you'll find out that the time you save on testing is one of the best reasons to do it. In a system I've just delivered, I insisted on doing automated unit-testing in spite of the claims that I'd spend way more time doing the tests than I would by testing the system manually. With all my unit tests done, I run more than 400 test cases in less than 10 minutes, and every time I had to do a small change in the code, all it took me to be sure the code was still working without bugs was ten minutes. Can you imagine the time one would spend to run those 400+ test cases by hand?

当涉及到自动化测试——无论是单元测试还是验收测试——每个人都认为编写可以手动完成的代码是浪费精力，有时这是真的——如果你计划只运行一次测试的话。自动化测试最好的部分是，您可以毫不费力地运行它们几次，并且在第二次或第三次运行之后，您所浪费的时间和精力已经得到了补偿。

最后一个建议是，不仅要对代码进行单元测试，还要先进行测试(详见TDD和BDD)。

当涉及到重构或重写一段代码时，单元测试也特别有用。如果您有良好的单元测试覆盖率，您就可以满怀信心地进行重构。如果没有单元测试，通常很难确保您没有破坏任何东西。

Unit testing helps a lot in projects that are larger than any one developer can hold in their head. They allow you to run the unit test suite before checkin and discover if you broke something. This cuts down a lot on instances of having to sit and twiddle your thumbs while waiting for someone else to fix a bug they checked in, or going to the hassle of reverting their change so you can get some work done. It's also immensely valuable in refactoring, so you can be sure that the refactored code passes all the tests that the original code did.

单元测试绝对是值得付出努力的。不幸的是，您选择了一个困难的(但不幸的是常见的)场景来实现它。

从单元测试中获得的最大好处是从头开始使用它——在一些精选的小项目中，我有幸在实现类之前编写单元测试(此时接口已经完成)。通过适当的单元测试，您可以在类还处于婴儿期时就发现并修复它们，而不是在将来毫无疑问会集成到复杂系统中的任何地方。

如果您的软件是完全面向对象的，那么您应该能够在类级别上添加单元测试，而不需要太多的努力。如果您没有那么幸运，您仍然应该尽可能地尝试合并单元测试。确保当你添加新功能时，新部分都有清晰的接口，你会发现单元测试让你的工作变得更容易。

在我们的办公室里，每天都有这样的对话:

“伙计，我就是喜欢单元测试，我刚刚能够对某些东西的工作方式进行了一系列更改，然后能够通过再次运行测试来确认我没有破坏任何东西……”

细节每天都在变化，但情绪却不变。单元测试和测试驱动开发(TDD)有很多隐藏的和个人的好处，也有很多明显的好处，除非他们自己做，否则你无法真正向他们解释。

但是，忽略这一点，下面是我的尝试!

Unit Tests allows you to make big changes to code quickly. You know it works now because you've run the tests, when you make the changes you need to make, you need to get the tests working again. This saves hours. TDD helps you to realise when to stop coding. Your tests give you confidence that you've done enough for now and can stop tweaking and move on to the next thing. The tests and the code work together to achieve better code. Your code could be bad / buggy. Your TEST could be bad / buggy. In TDD you are banking on the chances of both being bad / buggy being low. Often it's the test that needs fixing but that's still a good outcome. TDD helps with coding constipation. When faced with a large and daunting piece of work ahead writing the tests will get you moving quickly. Unit Tests help you really understand the design of the code you are working on. Instead of writing code to do something, you are starting by outlining all the conditions you are subjecting the code to and what outputs you'd expect from that. Unit Tests give you instant visual feedback, we all like the feeling of all those green lights when we've done. It's very satisfying. It's also much easier to pick up where you left off after an interruption because you can see where you got to - that next red light that needs fixing. Contrary to popular belief unit testing does not mean writing twice as much code, or coding slower. It's faster and more robust than coding without tests once you've got the hang of it. Test code itself is usually relatively trivial and doesn't add a big overhead to what you're doing. This is one you'll only believe when you're doing it :) I think it was Fowler who said: "Imperfect tests, run frequently, are much better than perfect tests that are never written at all". I interpret this as giving me permission to write tests where I think they'll be most useful even if the rest of my code coverage is woefully incomplete. Good unit tests can help document and define what something is supposed to do Unit tests help with code re-use. Migrate both your code and your tests to your new project. Tweak the code till the tests run again.

我参与的很多工作都没有很好地进行单元测试(web应用程序用户交互等)，但即使如此，我们在这个商店里都被测试感染了，当我们把测试束缚住时，我们最高兴。我怎么极力推荐这种方法都不为过。

单元测试的好处之一是可预测性。

在单元测试之前，我可以非常准确地预测编写代码所需的时间，但无法预测调试所需的时间。

现在，因为我可以计划将要编写什么测试，所以我知道编码需要多长时间，并且在编码结束时，系统已经调试好了!这为开发过程带来了可预见性，消除了许多压力，但仍然保留了所有的乐趣!!

单元测试非常值得最初的投资。自从几年前开始使用单元测试以来，我发现了一些真正的好处:

回归测试消除了恐惧 对代码进行更改(什么都没有 就像看到代码的温暖光芒 每次有变化，要么工作，要么爆发 了) 以下的可执行代码示例 其他团队成员(包括你自己) 6个月的时间…) 无情的重构——这是令人难以置信的回报，试试吧!

代码片段可以极大地帮助减少创建测试的开销。创建能够在几秒钟内创建类大纲和相关单元测试fixture的代码片段并不困难。

简而言之——是的。它们值得你付出每一分努力……在某种程度上。在一天结束的时候，测试仍然是代码，并且很像典型的代码增长，您的测试最终将需要重构，以便可维护和可持续。有一大堆的陷阱!当涉及到单元测试时，但是没有什么，我的意思是没有什么比丰富的单元测试集更能让开发人员更自信地进行更改了。

I'm working on a project right now.... it's somewhat TDD, and we have the majority of our business rules encapuslated as tests... we have about 500 or so unit tests right now. This past iteration I had to revamp our datasource and how our desktop application interfaces with that datasource. Took me a couple days, the whole time I just kept running unit tests to see what I broke and fixed it. Make a change; Build and run your tests; fix what you broke. Wash, Rinse, Repeat as necessary. What would have traditionally taken days of QA and boat loads of stress was instead a short and enjoyable experience.

提前准备，一点点额外的努力，当你不得不开始摆弄核心特性/功能时，它会给你带来十倍的回报。

我买了这本书——它是xUnit测试知识的圣经——它可能是我书架上被引用最多的书之一，我每天都在查阅它:链接文本

你应该尽量少测试!

这意味着，您应该编写足够多的单元测试来揭示意图。这一点经常被掩盖。单元测试的成本很高。如果您进行了更改，并且必须更改测试，那么您将不那么敏捷。保持单元测试短小精悍。这样它们就有很大的价值。

我经常看到许多永远不会崩溃的测试，它们又大又笨拙，没有提供太多价值，它们最终只会拖慢你的速度。

使用单元测试套件，可以在保持其余功能不变的情况下对代码进行更改。这是一个很大的优势。当你完成新功能的编码时，你会使用单元测试套件和回归测试套件吗?

Yes - Unit Testing is definitely worth the effort but you should know it's not a silver bullet. Unit Testing is work and you will have to work to keep the test updated and relevant as code changes but the value offered is worth the effort you have to put in. The ability to refactor with impunity is a huge benefit as you can always validate functionality by running your tests after any change code. The trick is to not get too hung up on exactly the unit-of-work you're testing or how you are scaffolding test requirements and when a unit-test is really a functional test, etc. People will argue about this stuff for hours on end and the reality is that any testing you do as your write code is better than not doing it. The other axiom is about quality and not quantity - I have seen code-bases with 1000's of test that are essentially meaningless as the rest don't really test anything useful or anything domain specific like business rules, etc of the particular domain. I've also seen codebases with 30% code coverage but the tests were relevant, meaningful and really awesome as they tested the core functionality of the code it was written for and expressed how the code should be used.

在探索新的框架或代码库时，我最喜欢的一个技巧是为“它”编写单元测试，以发现事物是如何工作的。这是一个学习新事物的好方法，而不是阅读枯燥的文档:)

我最近在我的工作场所经历了完全相同的经历，发现大多数人都知道理论上的好处，但必须具体地向他们推销这些好处，所以下面是我使用的(成功地)要点:

它们在执行负测试(处理意外输入(空指针、越界值等)时节省了时间，因为您可以在单个进程中完成所有这些。 它们在编译时提供关于更改标准的即时反馈。 它们对于测试在正常运行时可能不会公开的内部数据表示非常有用。

还有那个大的…

您可能不需要单元测试，但是当其他人进入并在没有完全理解的情况下修改代码时，它可以捕捉到他们可能犯的许多愚蠢的错误。

当你说“我们的代码库不适合简单的测试”时，这是代码气味的第一个迹象。编写单元测试意味着您通常以不同的方式编写代码，以使代码更具可测试性。在我看来，这是一件好事，因为多年来我在编写代码时看到我必须为其编写测试，这迫使我提出更好的设计。

多年来，我一直试图说服人们，他们需要为自己的代码编写单元测试。无论他们是先编写测试(如TDD)还是在编写功能之后，我总是试图向他们解释对代码进行单元测试的所有好处。几乎没有人反对我。你不能否认一些显而易见的事情，任何聪明的人都会看到单元测试和TDD的好处。

单元测试的问题在于它需要行为上的改变，而要改变人们的行为是非常困难的。用语言，你会让很多人同意你的观点，但你不会看到他们做事的方式有太多变化。

你必须通过行动来说服人们。你的个人成功会比你的争论吸引更多的人。如果他们看到你不只是在谈论单元测试或TDD，而是在做你鼓吹的事情，而且你是成功的，人们就会试图模仿你。

You should also take on a lead role because no one writes unit test right the first time, so you may need to coach them on how to do it, show them the way, and the tools available to them. Help them while they write their first tests, review the tests they write on their own, and show them the tricks, idioms and patterns you've learned through your own experiences. After a while, they will start seeing the benefits on their own, and they will change their behavior to incorporate unit tests or TDD into their toolbox.

改变不会在一夜之间发生，但只要有一点耐心，你就可能实现你的目标。

单元测试很像去健身房。你知道这对你有好处，所有的争论都有意义，所以你开始锻炼。刚开始有一种冲动，这很好，但几天后你开始怀疑是否值得这样做。你每天花一个小时换衣服，在仓鼠转轮上跑步，你不确定除了腿和手臂疼痛之外，你真的得到了什么。

然后，也许一两周后，就在疼痛消失的时候，一个重要的截止日期开始来临。你需要把醒着的每一个小时都用来完成“有用的”工作，所以你要去掉无关紧要的事情，比如去健身房。你改掉了这个习惯，当截止日期结束的时候，你又回到了起点。如果你设法回到健身房，你会觉得和你第一次去的时候一样酸痛。

You do some reading, to see if you're doing something wrong. You begin feel a little bit of irrational spite toward all the fit, happy people extolling the virtues of exercise. You realize that you don't have a lot in common. They don't have to drive 15 minutes out of the way to go to the gym; there is one in their building. They don't have to argue with anybody about the benefits of exercise; it is just something everybody does and accepts as important. When a Big Deadline approaches, they aren't told that exercise is unnecessary any more than your boss would ask you to stop eating.

所以，回答你的问题，单元测试通常是值得付出努力的，但是所需的努力量对每个人来说都不一样。如果你在一家不重视代码质量的公司处理意大利面条式的代码库，那么单元测试可能需要付出巨大的努力。(许多经理会歌颂单元测试，但这并不意味着他们会在关键时刻支持单元测试。)

如果你正试图将单元测试引入到你的工作中，并且没有看到你所期待的所有阳光和彩虹，不要责怪自己。你可能需要找一份新工作来真正让单元测试为你工作。

偶尔，我自己或我的同事会花几个小时来研究一个不太明显的错误，一旦发现了错误的原因，90%的情况下代码都没有经过单元测试。单元测试并不存在，因为开发人员为了节省时间而偷工减料，但随后却失去了这一点和更多的调试。

花少量的时间来编写单元测试可以节省未来调试的时间。

thetalkingwalnut问道: 有什么好方法可以让团队中持怀疑态度的开发人员相信单元测试的价值?

Everyone here is going to pile on lots of reasons out of the blue why unit testing is good. However, I find that often the best way to convince someone of something is to listen to their argument and address it point by point. If you listen and help them verbalize their concerns, you can address each one and perhaps convert them to your point of view (or at the very least, leave them without a leg to stand on). Who knows? Perhaps they will convince you why unit tests aren't appropriate for your situation. Not likely, but possible. Perhaps if you post their arguments against unit tests, we can help identify the counterarguments.

It's important to listen to and understand both sides of the argument. If you try to adopt unit tests too zealously without regard to people's concerns, you'll end up with a religious war (and probably really worthless unit tests). If you adopt it slowly and start by applying it where you will see the most benefit for the least cost, you might be able to demonstrate the value of unit tests and have a better chance of convincing people. I realize this isn't as easy as it sounds - it usually requires some time and careful metrics to craft a convincing argument.

单元测试是一种工具，就像任何其他工具一样，应该以这样一种方式进行应用，即收益(捕捉错误)大于成本(编写它们的工作)。如果它们没有意义，就不要使用它们，记住它们只是你工具库的一部分(例如检查、断言、代码分析器、形式化方法等)。我告诉开发者的是:

They can skip writing a test for a method if they have a good argument why it isn't necessary (e.g. too simple to be worth it or too difficult to be worth it) and how the method will be otherwise verified (e.g. inspection, assertions, formal methods, interactive/integration tests). They need to consider that some verifications like inspections and formal proofs are done at a point in time and then need to be repeated every time the production code changes, whereas unit tests and assertions can be used as regression tests (written once and executed repeatedly thereafter). Sometimes I agree with them, but more often I will debate about whether a method is really too simple or too difficult to unit test. If a developer argues that a method seems too simple to fail, isn't it worth taking the 60 seconds necessary to write up a simple 5-line unit test for it? These 5 lines of code will run every night (you do nightly builds, right?) for the next year or more and will be worth the effort if even just once it happens to catch a problem that may have taken 15 minutes or longer to identify and debug. Besides, writing the easy unit tests drives up the count of unit tests, which makes the developer look good. On the other hand, if a developer argues that a method seems too difficult to unit test (not worth the significant effort required), perhaps that is a good indication that the method needs to be divided up or refactored to test the easy parts. Usually, these are methods that rely on unusual resources like singletons, the current time, or external resources like a database result set. These methods usually need to be refactored into a method that gets the resource (e.g. calls getTime()) and a method that takes the resource as a argument (e.g. takes the timestamp as a parameter). I let them skip testing the method that retrieves the resource and they instead write a unit test for the method that now takes the resource as a argument. Usually, this makes writing the unit test much simpler and therefore worthwhile to write. The developer needs to draw a "line in the sand" in how comprehensive their unit tests should be. Later in development, whenever we find a bug, they should determine if more comprehensive unit tests would have caught the problem. If so and if such bugs crop up repeatedly, they need to move the "line" toward writing more comprehensive unit tests in the future (starting with adding or expanding the unit test for the current bug). They need to find the right balance.

重要的是要认识到单元测试并不是万能的，而且存在太多单元测试这样的事情。在我的工作场所，每当我们做一个经验教训，我不可避免地听到“我们需要写更多的单元测试”。管理层点头表示同意，因为“单元测试”==“好”这句话已经被灌输到他们的头脑中了。

However, we need to understand the impact of "more unit tests". A developer can only write ~N lines of code a week and you need to figure out what percentage of that code should be unit test code vs production code. A lax workplace might have 10% of the code as unit tests and 90% of the code as production code, resulting in product with a lot of (albeit very buggy) features (think MS Word). On the other hand, a strict shop with 90% unit tests and 10% production code will have a rock solid product with very few features (think "vi"). You may never hear reports about the latter product crashing, but that likely has as much to do with the product not selling very well as much as it has to do with the quality of the code.

Worse yet, perhaps the only certainty in software development is that "change is inevitable". Assume the strict shop (90% unit tests/10% production code) creates a product that has exactly 2 features (assuming 5% of production code == 1 feature). If the customer comes along and changes 1 of the features, then that change trashes 50% of the code (45% of unit tests and 5% of the production code). The lax shop (10% unit tests/90% production code) has a product with 18 features, none of which work very well. Their customer completely revamps the requirements for 4 of their features. Even though the change is 4 times as large, only half as much of the code base gets trashed (~25% = ~4.4% unit tests + 20% of production code).

我的观点是你必须传达你理解单元测试太少和太多之间的平衡——本质上你已经考虑了问题的两面。如果你能说服你的同事和/或你的管理层，你就获得了信誉，也许就有更好的机会赢得他们的信任。

让你测试的第一个东西与单元测试无关。我主要使用Perl工作，所以这些都是特定于Perl的示例，但您也可以适应。

每个模块是否正确加载和编译?在Perl中，这是一个创建Foo的问题。t对每个Foo。PM的代码库，它做: use_ok('Foo'); 所有的POD(普通文档)格式是否正确?使用Test::Pod来验证所有文件中所有Pod格式的有效性。

你可能不认为这些是大事情，他们不是，但我可以保证你会抓到一些泔水。当这些测试每小时运行一次，并捕捉到某人的过早提交时，您会让人们说“嘿，这很酷”。

我在其他任何答案中都没有看到这一点，但我注意到的一件事是，我可以更快地调试。你不需要通过正确的步骤序列深入到你的应用程序中，只发现你犯了一个布尔错误，需要重新做一遍。使用单元测试，您可以直接进入正在调试的代码。

单元测试适用于QA人员或你的经理，而不是你;所以绝对不值得。

您应该专注于编写正确的代码(不管这意味着什么)，而不是测试用例。让其他人去担心吧。

单元测试可以帮助您以更少的错误发布软件，同时降低总体开发成本。您可以点击链接阅读更多关于单元测试的好处

我曾多次尝试单元测试，我仍然相信，考虑到我的情况，这是值得的。

我开发网站，其中很多逻辑涉及在数据库中创建、检索或更新数据。当我为了单元测试的目的而尝试“模拟”数据库时，它变得非常混乱，似乎有点毫无意义。

当我围绕业务逻辑编写单元测试时，从长远来看它从未真正帮助过我。因为我主要独自从事项目工作，我倾向于直观地知道哪些代码区域可能会受到我所从事的工作的影响，并且我手动测试这些区域。我希望尽可能快地向客户交付解决方案，而单元测试通常看起来是浪费时间。我列出了手动测试，并亲自完成它们，并在执行过程中标记它们。

我可以看到，当一个开发团队在一个项目中工作并互相更新代码时，这可能是有益的，但即使这样，我认为如果开发人员具有高质量，良好的沟通和编写良好的代码通常就足够了。

我是一名维护工程师，负责一个文档记录不佳、糟糕而庞大的代码库。我希望编写代码的人已经为它编写了单元测试。 每次我进行更改和更新产品代码时，我都担心自己可能会因为没有考虑某些条件而引入错误。 如果他们编写测试，那么对代码库的更改就会更容易、更快。(与此同时，代码库将处于更好的状态)..

我认为，在编写api或框架时，单元测试非常有用，因为这些api或框架必须持续多年，并由原始编码器以外的人使用/修改/发展。

我在几年前发现了TDD，从那时起我就使用它编写了所有我喜欢的项目。我估计，TDD一个项目所花费的时间与牛仔式地组合一个项目所花费的时间大致相同，但我对最终产品的信心增加了，以至于我忍不住有一种成就感。

我还觉得它改进了我的设计风格(更面向界面，以防我需要一起模拟东西)，而且，正如顶部的绿色帖子所写的，它有助于“编码便秘”:当你不知道接下来要写什么，或者你有一个令人生畏的任务摆在你面前时，你可以写小一点的。

最后，我发现到目前为止，TDD最有用的应用是在调试中，如果仅仅因为您已经开发了一个询问框架，那么您就可以用它来刺激项目以可重复的方式产生错误。

[我有一个观点，我不能在上面看到]

“每个人都在进行单元测试，他们不一定意识到这一点——事实”

想想看，你写了一个函数来解析一个字符串并删除新的行字符。作为一个开发新手，你要么在命令行中通过Main()实现它来运行几个用例，要么用一个按钮组合一个可视化前端，将你的函数绑定到几个文本框和一个按钮上，然后看看会发生什么。

这就是单元测试——基本的和糟糕的组合在一起，但是你测试了一些情况下的代码段。

你写一些更复杂的东西。当您抛出一些用例(单元测试)并将其调试到代码中并进行跟踪时，它会抛出错误。你在浏览过程中查看这些值，并决定它们是对还是错。在某种程度上，这是单元测试。

这里的单元测试实际上是采用这种行为，将其形式化为结构化模式并保存，以便您可以轻松地重新运行这些测试。如果您编写了一个“适当的”单元测试用例而不是手动测试，那么它所花费的时间是相同的，或者随着您的经验的增加可能会更少，并且您可以一次又一次地重复它

我不知道。很多地方不做单元测试，但是代码质量很好。微软做单元测试，但是比尔·盖茨在他的演示中出现了蓝屏。

就在今天，我不得不更改一个类，之前已经为其编写了单元测试。 测试本身写得很好，包括我甚至没有想过的测试场景。 幸运的是，所有测试都通过了，我的更改很快得到了验证，并自信地放到了测试环境中。

这是非常以. net为中心的，但是有人尝试过Pex吗?

我非常怀疑，直到我尝试了——哇，多么精彩的表演。以前我想“我不会被这个概念说服，直到我明白它实际上对我有什么好处”。我只跑了一次就改变了主意，说:“我不在乎你怎么知道那里有致命异常的风险，但现在我知道我必须处理它”

也许这种行为唯一的缺点是它会标记所有事情，给你六个月的积压。但是，如果你有代码债，你总是有代码债，只是你不知道而已。告诉项目经理可能有20万个故障点，而你之前只知道有几十个，这是一个令人讨厌的前景，这意味着首先解释这个概念是至关重要的。

关于单元测试要记住的一件事是，它对开发人员来说是一种安慰。

相反，功能测试是针对用户的:无论何时添加功能测试，您都是在测试用户将看到的东西。当您添加单元测试时，您只是让开发人员的生活更轻松。在这方面有点奢侈。

当您必须在编写单元或功能测试之间做出选择时，请记住这种二分法。

关于这个话题，我写了一篇很大的博客文章。我发现单靠单元测试是不值得的，而且通常在截止日期临近时就会被削减。

与其从“测试后验证”的角度来讨论单元测试，我们应该看看在实现之前编写规范/测试/想法时所发现的真正价值。

这个简单的想法改变了我写软件的方式，我不会回到“旧的”方式。

测试优先开发如何改变了我的生活

根据我的经验，在复杂的软件环境中，单元测试和集成测试是“必须的”。

为了说服团队中的开发人员编写单元测试，您可能需要考虑在开发环境中集成单元测试回归分析(例如，在您的日常构建过程中)。

一旦开发人员知道如果单元测试失败，他们就不必花那么多时间调试它来发现问题，他们就会更有动力去编写这些测试。

这里有一个工具可以提供这样的功能:

单元测试回归分析工具

@George Stocker“不幸的是，我们的代码库并不适合简单的测试。”每个人都同意单元测试有好处，但对于这个代码库来说，成本似乎很高。如果成本大于收益，那么他们为什么要对此充满热情呢?倾听你同事的意见;也许对他们来说，单元测试的痛苦比单元测试的价值更大。

具体地说，尽量尽快获得价值，而不是一些感觉良好的“xUnit是绿色的”价值，而是用户和维护者所重视的干净代码。也许您必须为一次迭代强制进行单元测试，然后讨论是否值得这样做。

我同意与大多数人相反的观点: 不编写单元测试是可以的 特别是重原型的编程(例如AI)很难与单元测试相结合。

还没有人提到的一件事是，让所有开发人员承诺实际运行和更新任何现有的自动化测试。当您重新进行自动化测试并发现由于新的开发而出现故障时，会失去很多价值并使自动化测试非常痛苦。因为开发人员已经手动测试了代码，所以大多数测试不会指出错误，所以花在更新它们上的时间只是浪费。

说服怀疑者不要破坏其他人在单元测试上所做的工作，对于从测试中获得价值更为重要，而且可能更容易。

每次从存储库更新时，花费数小时更新由于新特性而损坏的测试既没有效率也没有乐趣。

Unit Testing is one of the most adopted methodologies for high quality code. Its contribution to a more stable, independent and documented code is well proven . Unit test code is considered and handled as an a integral part of your repository, and as such requires development and maintenance. However, developers often encounter a situation where the resources invested in unit tests where not as fruitful as one would expect. In an ideal world every method we code will have a series of tests covering it’s code and validating it’s correctness. However, usually due to time limitations we either skip some tests or write poor quality ones. In such reality, while keeping in mind the amount of resources invested in unit testing development and maintenance, one must ask himself, given the available time, which code deserve testing the most? And from the existing tests, which tests are actually worth keeping and maintaining? See here