我正致力于将单元测试集成到我所在团队的开发过程中,有一些人对此持怀疑态度。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?在我的具体情况下,我们将在添加功能或修复错误时添加单元测试。不幸的是,我们的代码库并不容易进行测试。


当前回答

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:)

其他回答

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。

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。

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。