I haven't seen anyone talk about mutation testing as a strategy for avoiding regressions on legacy code without perfect test coverage.
@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 testsThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@jbackus3@mifreewil For legacy code you can before refactoring kill all mutations via tests / code reduction. -
@jbackus3@mifreewil If all tests go through a mostly unaltered public API you can than use them as refactoring-anchor. -
@_m_b_j_@mifreewil mbj beat me to this point. IMO big productivity drop means either technical debt, bad tests, or not caring about quality -
@_m_b_j_@mifreewil Note mutant allows you to say "only test code that change since [COMMIT]." This means debt doesn't affect unrelated code
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.