Probably this is because I think of the test code as the good guy (finding bugs) and the actual program as the bad guy (containing them).
Show this thread
I consistently underestimate the probability that apparent bugs in my software are in the test code rather than what it's testing.
-
-
-
Whereas the test code is generally much more sloppily written and thus more likely to have bugs.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's called testception!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But if you test your tests... oh wait
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Quite, so a disagreement reveals a flaw in the programmer's understanding of their own systems - which is the cleanest definition of 'bug'
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Hire graduates of Portnov Computer School to help you with testing :-)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In prolog, you write the test code, and the compiler writes the code. In other languages, you do both.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You write code? Thats like seeing Bill Gates shopping at your supermarket. Don't you have someone who does that for you?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Heh, that’s interesting. It’s almost always my first thought — oh, I got the test wrong, better check it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.