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。

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。

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。

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。

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。

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”。