Code is a liability. Unit Tests are code obviously and are no less prone to contain bugs than the code under test. And of course they require maintenance just like any other part of the codebase.
It feels like the industry has blindly pushed for unit testing everything and 80% or more code coverage as the gold standard.
I’ve given up arguing about the cost/benefit of unit tests at work. I feel that the software the teams I’ve worked on over the past couple of decades still produce about as many bugs as before unit testing came along. I’m not building pace makers or aviation software, mostly LOB applications.
Unit tests provide a false sense of security (especially to management.) Yes sometimes they help catch refactoring bugs, but at what cost?
It feels like the industry has blindly pushed for unit testing everything and 80% or more code coverage as the gold standard.
I’ve given up arguing about the cost/benefit of unit tests at work. I feel that the software the teams I’ve worked on over the past couple of decades still produce about as many bugs as before unit testing came along. I’m not building pace makers or aviation software, mostly LOB applications.
Unit tests provide a false sense of security (especially to management.) Yes sometimes they help catch refactoring bugs, but at what cost?