I really believe in the importance of TDD. It helps me catch stupid bugs right away, instead of waiting for testers or customers to report them. I especially like that it catches any regressions.
TDD lets me refactor safely. Also, writing tests first help me think about my design from the caller's perspective.
I still need a comprehensive suite of end-to-end tests to make sure the whole system works. I am concerned that, since I'm writing both the code and the tests, my blind spots will appear in both, allowing bugs to slip through.
When requirements change, or we refactor a subsystem, a thousand tests break. Then we have to spend a lot of time fixing them.
TDD is expensive, but it's worth it.While others say something like:
TDD is not a testing activity; it's a design activity. "Test" is a misnomer. With TDD I write better code, faster.
I don't need a bug database. My whole team only has a couple bugs per month. We do root cause analysis on every bug.From the first perspective, the second sounds weird. It's hard to believe it's even possible. Maybe it only works in that specific context.
From the second perspective, the first sounds backwards and unenlightened. Why don't they get it?
I now believe that learning about TDD takes time and moves through stages. From the early stages, it's hard to fully understand the later stages. From the later stages, the you wonder why you ever wasted your time in the early stages.
The stages that I see are:
- TDD is about testing. I write tests to prove that my code works. Thanks to the safety afforded by those tests, I refactor more.
- I commit to 100% TDD. Every feature and every bug fix will be represented in tests. I immediately discover how hard this is, which leads me to mocks, dependency injection, marking methods as "public" for testing, etc.
- Tests give me feedback. I see "hard to test" as a code smell. I refactor to make things easier to test. Tests get easier and code gets cleaner.
- My tests are always easy to write, easy to read, and super fast. Code is clean. Every idea has a single canonical location. There is no duplication. Classes have great names. Cohesion is high and coupling is low.
There are no bug farms, no part of the code I'm afraid to touch. Working in this code is inherently low risk. Since I rarely create bugs, testing for correctness is rarely fruitful. So yes, tests got me here, but not by catching bugs.
I found #4 very hard to grasp a year ago. I'm not sure if seeing this roadmap would have helped. Perhaps the right way to begin is just to focus on #1: write tests to catch bugs. Make developers responsible for proving correctness of their work. Don't count a feature as "done" until the bugs are gone. Build from there.
There may be an additional stage in the middle. If you know it, tell me and I'll fill in.
I'm really curious if there's a stage 5. Something I'm blind to. Got any?