Comment on AI Coding Is Massively Overhyped, Report Finds
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 day agoIdeally, the code developer is not the same person that develops the unit tests.
Why? The developer is exactly the person I want writing the tests.
There should also be integration tests written by a separate QA, but unit tests should 100% be the responsibility of the dev making the change.
Replacing the missing bits with AI is better than not having them at all.
I disagree. A bad test is worse than no test, because it gives you a false sense of security. I can identify missing tests with coverage reports, I can’t easily identify bad tests. If I’m working in a codebase with poor coverage, I’ll be extra careful to check for any downstream impacts of my change because I know the test suite won’t help me. If I’m working in a codebase with poor tests but high coverage, I may assume a test pass indicates that I didn’t break anything else.
If a company is going to rely heavily on AI for codegen, I’d expect tests to be manually written and have very high test coverage.
Why? The developer is exactly the person I want writing the tests.
It’s better if it’s a different developer, so they don’t know the nuances of your implementation and test functionality only, avoids some mistakes. You’re correct on all the other points.
I really disagree here. If someone else is writing your unit tests, that means one of the following is true:
Devs should write their tests, and reviewers should ensure the tests do a good job covering the logic. At the end of the day, the dev is responsible for the correctness of their code, so this makes the most sense to me.
the tests are written after the code is merged - there will be gaps, and the second dev will be lazy in writing those tests
I don’t really see how this follows. Why do the second one necessary have to be lazy, and what stops the first one from being lazy as well.
The reason I like it to be different people is so there are two sets of eyes looking at the same problem without the need for doing a job twice. If you miss something while implementing, it’s easier for you to miss it during test writing. It’s very hard to switch to testing the concept and not the specific implementation, but if you weren’t the one implementing it, you’re not “married” to the code and it’s easier for you to spot the gaps.
Devs are more invested in code they wrote themselves. When I’m writing tests for something I didn’t write, I’m less personally invested in it. Looking at PRs by other devs when we do pushes for improving coverage, I’m not alone here. That’s just human psychology, you care more about things you built than things you didn’t.
I think testing should be an integral part of the dev process. I don’t think any code should be merged until there are tests proving its correctness. Having someone else write the tests encourages handing tests to jr devs since they’re “lower priority.”
I’m mixed on unit tests - there are some things the developer will know (white box) about edge cases etc. that others likely wouldn’t, and they should definitely have input on those tests. On the other hand, independence of review is a very important aspect of “harnessing the power of the team.” If you’ve got one guy who gathers the requirements, implements the code, writes the tests, and declares the requirements fulfilled, that better be one outstandingly brilliant guy with all the time on his hands he needs to do the jobs right. If you’re trying to leverage the talents of 20 people to make a better product, having them all be solo-virtuoso actors working independently alongside each other is more likely to create conflict, chaos, duplication, and massive holes of missed opportunities and unforeseen problems in the project.
independence of review is a very important aspect of “harnessing the power of the team.”
Yep, that’s basically my rationale
MangoCats@feddit.it 1 day ago
True enough
Also agree, if your org has trimmed to the point that you’re just making tests to say you have tests, with no review as to their efficacy, they will be getting what they deserve soon enough.
If a company is going to rely heavily on AI for anything I’d expect a significant traditional human employee backstop to the AI until it has a track record. Not “buckle up, we’re gonna try somethin’” track record, more like two or three full business cycles before starting to divest of the human capital that built the business to where it is today. Though, if your business is on the ropes and likely to tank anyway… why not try something new?
Was a story about IBM letting thousands of workers go, replacing them with AI… then hiring even more workers in other areas with the money saved from the AI retooling. Apparently they let a bunch of HR and other admin staff go and beefed up on sales and product development. There are some jobs that you want more predictable algorithms in than potentially biased people, and HR seems like an area that could have a lot of that.