Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Arved Sandstrom, post: 4407694"] I'm cool with the idea of getting unit tests in there early. I'm not too concerned with writing them first, but when I get the chance to write them, I try to have unit tests in place immediately after a method that rates being tested. Note the "get the chance to write them at all". 90 percent of the code I write is bespoke stuff, usually done on-site. While there is generally tolerance for some decent level of testing prior to UAT, clients tend to heavily favour system and integration and functional testing over unit tests. There are a bunch of reasons why clients think that way, some of them justified, and some of the clients who do have a bias against unit tests have experience with them. I'm not being judgmental when I point this out, it's simply a fact of my work environment. It's not a universal client attitude but I believe it to be a common one. And it's entirely possible to work with clients who are enthusiastic about functional and higher tests, but go so far as to forbid unit tests. I've worked with such. [ SNIP ] It's pretty simple, you've usually got limited time for all testing activities, much less than you'd like and less than you need. Your project has X days for unit tests, functional tests, integration tests, system tests, load tests and acceptance tests. Acceptance tests usually get a fixed, adequate amount of time. System tests and load tests also usually get fixed, almost adequate blocks of time. Everything else has to fight for budget, so of unit or functional or integration testing, where do you get the most bang for the buck? I have my own thoughts on the latter, but that's not relevant in answering your question. I am merely pointing out that in the real world you almost always have to sacrifice some forms of tests. AHS [/QUOTE]

Verification