• From: Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@g...>
• To: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@g...>
• Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 17:51:53 +0100

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@g...> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@g...> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@g...> wrote:
>>>> I'm completely bemused.
>>>
>>> So am I :)
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, the primary purpose of unit tests is to be able to fail. An unit
>>> test that always passes is useless.
>>>
>>
>
> I think some of the bemusement is because the development community
> have (mis)appropriated unit testing  as a development methodology (the
> mis is my opinion).
>
> The primary purpose of testing (all levels of testing) is risk
> mitigation. In that context it is easy to see why a test that fails
> when there is no bug is useless.
>
> It isn't mitigating any risk.

Worse it is making us spend time and effort investigating it and then
updating it so that it doesn't fail next time.

• References:
  • Testing XML don't use xUnit
    • From: Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@g...>
  • Re: Testing XML don't use xUnit
    • From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...>
  • Re: Testing XML don't use xUnit
    • From: Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@g...>
  • Re: Testing XML don't use xUnit
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
  • Re: Testing XML don't use xUnit
    • From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@g...>
  • Re: Testing XML don't use xUnit
    • From: Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@g...>
  • Re: Testing XML don't use xUnit
    • From: Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@g...>