Wow, automated tests are saving my ass right now

[afuna]

When I first did renames, I didn't have the concept of a rename token object -- I had the shop item, and then I was doing a bunch of stuff directly in DW::Rename. At some point, I rethought, and encapsulated some of that logic into a new class DW::RenameToken, and I had to do a lot of tweaks to what I had already done to accommodate it.

I'm so *absolutely grateful* that szabgab did such a job towards making existing tests usable, because that put tests in mind when I first started doing the renames module, and I felt obliged to take the time to wrote a few simple tests.

Now the tests are failing, and in all the ways that point out to me where my old assumptions no longer bear weight under the new/tweaked code. They have paid for themselves many times over.

Now how do we convince others to write more of these things? :-)

Comments

[pauamma]

Hmm, yes. Good point. (And no, it doesn't, but I suspect the answer is along the lines of "not a lot, and the effort involved in writing an automated test to check for these bugs and prevent a regression would be out of proportion with the gain.")

[afuna]

I think it's worth investing in an ongoing effort to write bugs for old code (because that's the code we'll be modifying), especially if it's like...stuff that we're going to restructure, while wanting to make sure that we don't break old expected behavior (if we do do that. I'm not sure if there's anything currently on the plate?).

But a better investment, and one that's less likely to fizzle out/burn out, is to try to code stuff for new modules, as you code them. I still need to sort my thoughts out for how to write something appropriate for dw_dev, but it's something I'd like to encourage!