We've definitely got some test suites that slow us down, but...
...those suites would not pass review elsewhere in the codebase. Near as I can tell, most of the time that it's the case "our tests slow us down" is because the test code isn't held to the same standard (ie, the standards are massively relaxed)
That all said, what I actually want to ask -
In my head, having a good test suite - particularly a BDD-style one, like Cucumber tests - mean that it's easy to add tests to cover things uncovered from manual QA.
Have you found that to be the case? Or, have you found that it could be the case, if the test suites were different in some way?
> 80/20 [and not 100%]
Totes. I'm actually surprised that I've been able to hot 100%; lately it's been like 95% after I bang out the obvious tests, and then there's like one branch that's missing and it's easy to add. If/when it's hard to get that last 10%, totes agree - don't.
...those suites would not pass review elsewhere in the codebase. Near as I can tell, most of the time that it's the case "our tests slow us down" is because the test code isn't held to the same standard (ie, the standards are massively relaxed)
That all said, what I actually want to ask -
In my head, having a good test suite - particularly a BDD-style one, like Cucumber tests - mean that it's easy to add tests to cover things uncovered from manual QA.
Have you found that to be the case? Or, have you found that it could be the case, if the test suites were different in some way?
> 80/20 [and not 100%]
Totes. I'm actually surprised that I've been able to hot 100%; lately it's been like 95% after I bang out the obvious tests, and then there's like one branch that's missing and it's easy to add. If/when it's hard to get that last 10%, totes agree - don't.