Agreed, you find the right shape for the code as you build and try stuff, adding the tests right after makes most sense, unless maybe you’re just testing an API or something
Unit tested test for accuracy, if your code isn’t “shaped to drive tests nicely”, it’s bad code.
They enforce requirements. You do start with code, you start with the “shape”, you architect how your application should be developed and you write unit tests for the functions you already know you want but haven’t written the logic to yet, the unit test validates the logic so you don’t spend 2 hours hunting down a missing negative sign.
Translates to:
“I created this (unit) test that tests code that does not exist yet…”
Alright AI bro keep your copium…
Test driven development is not a new concept…
Designing your unit tests before you’ve written your algorithm is - in my experience - a bit ass backwards.
Agreed, you find the right shape for the code as you build and try stuff, adding the tests right after makes most sense, unless maybe you’re just testing an API or something
I mean I’m theory for any planned method you would know the input and expected output before the coffee is written.
Except that then you’ll shape your interfaces to drive tests nicely, instead of being, you know, sane and useful (been there, done that).
Unit tested test for accuracy, if your code isn’t “shaped to drive tests nicely”, it’s bad code.
They enforce requirements. You do start with code, you start with the “shape”, you architect how your application should be developed and you write unit tests for the functions you already know you want but haven’t written the logic to yet, the unit test validates the logic so you don’t spend 2 hours hunting down a missing negative sign.