I think the point that you don't understand is that unit testing frameworks like NUnit (and the like) will help you in automating small to medium-sized tests. Usually you can run the tests in a GUI (that's the case with NUnit, for instance) by simply clicking a button and then - hopefully - see the progress bar stay green. If it turns red, the framework shows you which test failed and what exactly went wrong. In a normal unit test, you often use assertions, e.g. Assert.AreEqual(expectedValue, actualValue, "some description") - so if the two values are unequal you will see an error saying "some description: expected <expectedValue> but was <actualValue>".

总之，单元测试将使测试更快，对开发人员来说更舒服。您可以在提交新代码之前运行所有的单元测试，这样就不会中断同一项目中其他开发人员的构建过程。

这回答了为什么您应该进行单元测试。

下面的三个视频涵盖了javascript中的单元测试，但一般原则适用于大多数语言。

单元测试:现在的几分钟将节省几小时后- Eric Mann - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UmmaPe8Bzc

JS单元测试(非常好)- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IYqgx8JxlU

编写可测试的JavaScript - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzjogCFO4Zo

Now I'm just learning about the subject so I may not be 100% correct and there's more to it than what I'm describing here but my basic understanding of unit testing is that you write some test code (which is kept separate from your main code) that calls a function in your main code with input (arguments) that the function requires and the code then checks if it gets back a valid return value. If it does get back a valid value the unit testing framework that you're using to run the tests shows a green light (all good) if the value is invalid you get a red light and you then can fix the problem straight away before you release the new code to production, without testing you may actually not have caught the error.

So you write tests for you current code and create the code so that it passes the test. Months later you or someone else need to modify the function in your main code, because earlier you had already written test code for that function you now run again and the test may fail because the coder introduced a logic error in the function or return something completely different than what that function is supposed to return. Again without the test in place that error might be hard to track down as it can possibly affect other code as well and will go unnoticed.

Also the fact that you have a computer program that runs through your code and tests it instead of you manually doing it in the browser page by page saves time (unit testing for javascript). Let's say that you modify a function that is used by some script on a web page and it works all well and good for its new intended purpose. But, let's also say for arguments sake that there is another function you have somewhere else in your code that depends on that newly modified function for it to operate properly. This dependent function may now stop working because of the changes that you've made to the first function, however without tests in place that are run automatically by your computer you will not notice that there's a problem with that function until it is actually executed and you'll have to manually navigate to a web page that includes the script which executes the dependent function, only then you notice that there's a bug because of the change that you made to the first function.

重申一下，在开发应用程序时运行测试将在编写代码时发现这类问题。如果没有适当的测试，你必须手动检查整个应用程序，即使这样也很难发现错误，你天真地将其发送到生产环境中，一段时间后，好心的用户会给你发送错误报告(这不会像你在测试框架中的错误消息那样好)。

It's quite confusing when you first hear of the subject and you think to yourself, am I not already testing my code? And the code that you've written is working like it is supposed to already, "why do I need another framework?"... Yes you are already testing your code but a computer is better at doing it. You just have to write good enough tests for a function/unit of code once and the rest is taken care of for you by the mighty cpu instead of you having to manually check that all of your code is still working when you make a change to your code.

此外，如果你不想进行单元测试，你也不必进行单元测试，但随着你的项目/代码库开始变得越来越大，引入错误的可能性也在增加，这是值得的。

单元测试是关于编写测试应用程序代码的代码。

名称的Unit部分是关于一次测试小单元代码(例如一个方法)的意图。

xUnit是用来帮助测试的——它们是帮助测试的框架。其中一部分是自动测试运行器，它会告诉您哪些测试失败，哪些测试通过。

它们还可以在每个测试之前设置您需要的公共代码，并在所有测试完成后将其删除。

您可以使用一个测试来检查是否抛出了预期的异常，而不必自己编写整个try catch块。

单元测试是在不需要该代码单元所依赖的基础设施的情况下对代码单元(例如单个函数)进行测试。即在隔离环境中进行测试。

例如，如果您正在测试的函数连接到数据库并执行更新，那么在单元测试中您可能不想执行该更新。如果这是一个积分测试，你会这样做，但在这个例子中，它不是。

因此，单元测试将测试您正在测试的“函数”中所包含的功能，而不会产生数据库更新的副作用。

假设函数从数据库中检索了一些数字，然后执行标准偏差计算。你想测试什么?标准偏差计算正确，还是数据从数据库返回?

在单元测试中，您只想测试标准偏差的计算是否正确。在集成测试中，您希望测试标准偏差计算和数据库检索。

This is my take on it. I would say unit testing is the practice of writing software tests to verify that your real software does what it is meant to. This started with jUnit in the Java world and has become a best practice in PHP as well with SimpleTest and phpUnit. It's a core practice of Extreme Programming and helps you to be sure that your software still works as intended after editing. If you have sufficient test coverage, you can do major refactoring, bug fixing or add features rapidly with much less fear of introducing other problems.

当所有单元测试都能自动运行时，这是最有效的。

单元测试通常与OO开发相关联。基本思想是创建一个脚本，为你的代码设置环境，然后练习它;您编写断言，指定您应该接收的预期输出，然后使用如上所述的框架执行您的测试脚本。

框架将针对您的代码运行所有测试，然后报告每个测试的成功或失败。phpUnit默认情况下从Linux命令行运行，尽管有HTTP接口可用于它。SimpleTest本质上是基于web的，在我看来，它更容易启动和运行。结合xDebug, phpUnit可以为您提供代码覆盖率的自动统计数据，有些人认为这非常有用。

有些团队从他们的subversion存储库编写钩子，以便在提交更改时自动运行单元测试。

将单元测试保存在与应用程序相同的存储库中是一个很好的实践。

我在大学里从未学过单元测试，我花了一段时间才“学会”它。我读到它，心想“啊，对，自动化测试，我想那应该很酷”，然后我就忘记了。

It took quite a bit longer before I really figured out the point: Let's say you're working on a large system and you write a small module. It compiles, you put it through its paces, it works great, you move on to the next task. Nine months down the line and two versions later someone else makes a change to some seemingly unrelated part of the program, and it breaks the module. Worse, they test their changes, and their code works, but they don't test your module; hell, they may not even know your module exists.

现在你有了一个问题:坏代码在主干中，甚至没有人知道。最好的情况是内部测试人员在您发布之前就发现了它，但是在游戏后期修复代码的成本很高。如果没有内部测试人员发现它……嗯，这确实会非常昂贵。

The solution is unit tests. They'll catch problems when you write code - which is fine - but you could have done that by hand. The real payoff is that they'll catch problems nine months down the line when you're now working on a completely different project, but a summer intern thinks it'll look tidier if those parameters were in alphabetical order - and then the unit test you wrote way back fails, and someone throws things at the intern until he changes the parameter order back. That's the "why" of unit tests. :-)