我正致力于将单元测试集成到我所在团队的开发过程中,有一些人对此持怀疑态度。有什么好方法可以让团队中持怀疑态度的开发人员相信单元测试的价值?在我的具体情况下,我们将在添加功能或修复错误时添加单元测试。不幸的是,我们的代码库并不容易进行测试。


当前回答

单元测试的全部意义在于使测试变得简单。这是自动的。“make test”就完成了。如果您面临的问题之一是难以测试代码,那么这就是使用单元测试的最佳理由。

其他回答

单元测试的全部意义在于使测试变得简单。这是自动的。“make test”就完成了。如果您面临的问题之一是难以测试代码,那么这就是使用单元测试的最佳理由。

当涉及到重构或重写一段代码时,单元测试也特别有用。如果您有良好的单元测试覆盖率,您就可以满怀信心地进行重构。如果没有单元测试,通常很难确保您没有破坏任何东西。

Unit Testing is one of the most adopted methodologies for high quality code. Its contribution to a more stable, independent and documented code is well proven . Unit test code is considered and handled as an a integral part of your repository, and as such requires development and maintenance. However, developers often encounter a situation where the resources invested in unit tests where not as fruitful as one would expect. In an ideal world every method we code will have a series of tests covering it’s code and validating it’s correctness. However, usually due to time limitations we either skip some tests or write poor quality ones. In such reality, while keeping in mind the amount of resources invested in unit testing development and maintenance, one must ask himself, given the available time, which code deserve testing the most? And from the existing tests, which tests are actually worth keeping and maintaining? See here

测试驱动开发中经常被忽略的一个主要部分是可测试代码的编写。乍一看,这似乎是一种妥协,但您会发现可测试代码最终也是模块化的、可维护的和可读的。 如果你仍然需要说服别人,这是一个关于单元测试优点的简单演示。

Unit testing helps a lot in projects that are larger than any one developer can hold in their head. They allow you to run the unit test suite before checkin and discover if you broke something. This cuts down a lot on instances of having to sit and twiddle your thumbs while waiting for someone else to fix a bug they checked in, or going to the hassle of reverting their change so you can get some work done. It's also immensely valuable in refactoring, so you can be sure that the refactored code passes all the tests that the original code did.