I haven't seen anyone talk about mutation testing as a strategy for avoiding regressions on legacy code without perfect test coverage.
@mifreewil I think with time it results in you writing better code and tests, so there isn't much additional work
-
-
@jbackus3 doesn't overfocus though on low mutation = too many tests = large overhead in changing/refactoring any existing code? -
@mifreewil Not sure I'm following this point. -
@jbackus3 w/ low mutation, in order to change any part of the code, you have to also modify a large number of tests, slowing productivity -
@mifreewil Well it depends. Usually I have to write tests that weren't there and should be. -
@mifreewil But now our tests are almost always properly decoupled from implementation. Now changing code means legitimately changing tests
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.