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

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:)

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。

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。

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....”

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)。