J B Rainsberger Integrated Tests Are A Scam HD

What people said

mihaigalos · 2022-09 · Recommendation

I've tried FitNesse professionally. I think it comes short in many regards. To be clear, I think integrated/integration tests in their own only add value if you have a couple of them (meaning <5). Otherwise, they're red and no one knows why. And they take a whole lot of time to execute. JBRainsberger has an nice talk on them [1]. Pactflow have implemented a Contract/Collaboration framework called Pact [2]. I haven't used it professionally but I love the concept. [1] [VIDEO] [2] [LINK]

Read the original HN comment ↗

mpweiher · 2018-07 · Recommendation

Sure. I'd venture to say that integration tests should be fewer than unit tests, see hexagonal etc. Hopefully those external interfaces are also more stable, so they don't need to be run as often. I tend to use my integration tests also as characterization tests that verify the simulator/test-double I use for any external systems within my unit tests. See also: the testing pyramid[1] and "integrated tests are a scam"[2], which is a tad click-bait, but actually quite good. [1] [LINK] [2] [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗

1_player · 2017-10 · Recommendation

I have adopted the same philosophy. A few resources on this, part of the so-called London school TDD: - [LINK] (and the rest of the Wiki) - [LINK] - Most of the screencasts and articles at [LINK] (especially this brilliant talk [LINK] ) - Integration Tests Are A Scam: [VIDEO] All of these basically go the opposite way of the article's philosophy: Not too many integration tests, mostly unit tests. Clearly define a contract between the boundaries of the code, and stub/mock on the contract. You'll be left with mostly pure functions at the leaves, which you'll unit test.

Read the original HN comment ↗