I think it rubs people the wrong way because (though it looks like code) in some sense it is not programming… it’s like the negative image of a program… like a mold or specification-box that contains and fits around the code, which reverses several key principles.
It also can highlight if the code needs to be moved or reorganized, and let me tell you… the LAST thing that devs want is to interpret the struggle to write a unit test as a sign the code needs rework, they would MUCH rather keep unit tests as an after-thought; like some kind of mandated torture-ritual that produces a thing of no value.
Speaking of not valuing tests… I’ve literally seen devs blithely invert test assertions (that where clearly valid), those that made sense in context, and even some that were PART OF THE TEST’S NAME… just to brush the “meaningless failures” out of their way… as if they could not be bothered to even read one sentence to understand the “why”… uggh.
Anyway, I digress and ramble. If you really want more of me in the industry, I can provide one more! If you happen to know of any teams that need a professional-unit-testing-developer, I’m recently on the market! :)
Many code-reviewers likewise devalue tests, giving only a cursory skim over the unit-test section of PRs, if they examine them at all, and sometimes code-review itself is devalued to the point of a rubber-stamp (e.g. “great, we need someone from team X to approve it too… doesn’t matter who, though…”).
If I could tell you, you would be SHOCKED at how high-profile and recent this sordid project was; it’s literally in the news and discussed in my podcasts.
I think it rubs people the wrong way because (though it looks like code) in some sense it is not programming… it’s like the negative image of a program… like a mold or specification-box that contains and fits around the code, which reverses several key principles.
It also can highlight if the code needs to be moved or reorganized, and let me tell you… the LAST thing that devs want is to interpret the struggle to write a unit test as a sign the code needs rework, they would MUCH rather keep unit tests as an after-thought; like some kind of mandated torture-ritual that produces a thing of no value.
Speaking of not valuing tests… I’ve literally seen devs blithely invert test assertions (that where clearly valid), those that made sense in context, and even some that were PART OF THE TEST’S NAME… just to brush the “meaningless failures” out of their way… as if they could not be bothered to even read one sentence to understand the “why”… uggh.
Anyway, I digress and ramble. If you really want more of me in the industry, I can provide one more! If you happen to know of any teams that need a professional-unit-testing-developer, I’m recently on the market! :)
Pre-merge code review should stop that kind of thing. I honestly haven’t seen anything like this in years.
Many code-reviewers likewise devalue tests, giving only a cursory skim over the unit-test section of PRs, if they examine them at all, and sometimes code-review itself is devalued to the point of a rubber-stamp (e.g. “great, we need someone from team X to approve it too… doesn’t matter who, though…”).
If I could tell you, you would be SHOCKED at how high-profile and recent this sordid project was; it’s literally in the news and discussed in my podcasts.