On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 16:26:15 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 09/02/2015 05:07 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On Wednesday, 2 September 2015 at 09:28:49 UTC, Dominikus
Dittes Scherkl
wrote:
It is not unitestable.
But we have concepts like "thread local per default" and
message
passing that should make avoiding race conditions easier. And
concurrent code doesn't prevent us from testing all paths of
templates.
I was responding to the statement that you should unittest
everything.
That is simply not true. For some code, this is not possible,
for some
other code, it gives poor noise to signal ratio.
What would be a good litmus test "this code needs/doesn't need
unittesting"? -- Andrei
IMO, is the test going to be reliable or break easily is probably
the most important parameter. You want unitests to have a high
noise to signal ratio so they can be part of the build and/or run
on every PR.
There is obviously a grey area where reasonable people will
disagree on the cost benefit ratio.
A good litmus test would be "is there a lot of parameter that
aren't under my control that affect this piece of code ?"
