Painting while blindfolded

-

In a discussion yesterday about how to know if our code was thoroughly tested, one of my tech leads mentioned "Unit testing without a code coverage tool is like painting a wall while blindfolded". I think it's a very apt metaphor, and something that developers should take to heart.

In most modern programming languages, there are tools to both automate unit level tests as well as determine how much of your code was actually executed as part of a test run. To run unit tests without validating what has and hasn't been covered is unprofessional. Imagine if you hired someone to paint your house and the first step is to blindfold themselves...what is your confidence that they will do a good job?

What amazes me is that I've heard a number of developers repeat this phrase "My professor told me that 100% code coverage is practically impossible"...which seems to lead them to the inevitable conclusion that "so therefore I won't write ANY tests". Fine 100% is tremendously difficult (especially if your code is poorly thought out or a "bad design (TM)", but 100% is NOT practically impossible...anyone who says this is either: #1 a hack, or #2 unprofessional. On that note, I will point out that typically CS/CE professors are quite often not professional developers or engineers, they're more often academics and/or scientists.

P.S. Professors, please stop saying this to your CS/CE students...

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Please use ANSI-92 SQL Join Syntax

-
Image
Way back in 1992, a standard was published for SQL. In it, the syntax for specifying joins in SQL Database was finally standardized. This was a good thing because (for folks who've been doing this a while), trying to decode the vagaries of how various Databases handled outer joins could drive you bonkers yielding different results depending on the parse order of things in the from and where clauses. Unfortunately, some DBMS vendors took a while to adopt this standard (Oracle didn't support it until 2001), but at this point if you're using a major RDBMS and NOT using it, you're probably mired in a tradition or habit that bears changing. As an example of what I'm describing, here are some examples of what I mean. Old School (no standard syntax + implementation and evaluation of predicates varied by vendor [and query]): select * from customer, order where customer.customer = order.customerid ANSI way (agreed to standard, predicate evaluation has some rules ...
Read more

The difference between Scalability, Performance, Efficiency, and Concurrency explained

-
I thought I'd give some explanation of the difference between scalability, performance, Efficiency, and concurrency. To make things more accessible (and because I'm watching a cooking show on TV) I'm going to use a baking metaphor to help explain the differences. In our case, the system in question is baking cookies for consumers. Scalability, is how well something responds to adding more resources. If we can double our capacity by doubling the number of resources, we've got linear scalability. In our baking example, if we add more ingredients, we can scale to a larger number of cookies. To contrast with our other metrics, this doesn't actually increase the performance of creating a single cookie (they still take 10 minutes to bake), and the efficiency is the same (we just have more capacity). We also cannot bake more cookies in a fixed time period, but over a larger time period we can produce more cookies. Performance is how fast something can get done, u...
Read more

the myth of asynchronous JDBC

-
Image
I keep seeing people (especially in the scala/typesafe world) posting about async jdbc libraries. STOP IT! Under the current APIs, async JDBC belongs in a realm with Unicorns, Tiger Squirrels, and 8' spiders. While you might be able to move the blocking operations and queue requests and keep your "main" worker threads from blocking, jdbc is synchronous. At some point, somewhere, there's going to be a thread blocking waiting for a response. It's frustrating to see so many folks hyping this and muddying the waters. Unless you write your own client for a dbms and have a dbms that can multiplex calls over a single connection (or using some other strategy to enable this capability) db access is going to block. It's not impossible to make the calls completely async, but nobody's built it yet. Yes, I know ajdbc is taking a stab at this capability, but even IT uses a thread pool for the blocking calls (be default). Someday we'll have async databa...
Read more