Indeed, and to expand on all that: test-first or test-last, it's smart to
purposely break your code and make sure that your test *fails* semi-cleanly
(rather than, e.g., deadlocking).
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 3:32 AM, Nate Finch wrote:
> I'll definitely +1 the need for gc.HasLen ... I've seen a to
I'll definitely +1 the need for gc.HasLen ... I've seen a ton of panics in
tests if the code starts erroneously returning nil slices. Obviously this
is less bad, since the tests still fail, but they're really ugly annoying
failures.
And +1000 to making tests that fail before fixing the code (or a
Hi folks,
I came across an interesting bug yesterday and during investigation
found that there was a very comprehensive test that covered the situation.
The problem is that the asserts were not actually running.
The asserts were inside a loop where the expectation was that the loop
would run exa
