Hi Rich! Re hour+long unit tests
I agree that you need a comprehensive test suite, and that it should test all the dark and hidden corners of your code base.
But time is not free! A long test suite inhibits:
Note that these points are orthogonal to whether developers edit-test cycle runs some or all tests, or whether you use a CI tool, or a test-commit tool, or some other workflow.
All that said though, I’m extremely interested in *why* any given test suite takes hours: does it need to? What is it doing? Can you decrease the time by 90% and coverage by 2%?
I got another response back, which talks about keeping the working set of tests @ about 5 minutes long and splitting the rest off (via declared metadata on each test) into ‘run after commit or during CI’. This has merits for reducing the burden on a developer in their test-commit cycle, but as I claim above, I believe there is still an overhead from those other tests that are pending execution at some later time.
From a LEAN perspective, the cycle time is very important. Another important thing is handoffs. Each time we hand over something (e.g. a code change that I *think* works because it passed my local tests), there is a cost. Handing over to a machine to do CI is just as expensive as handing to a colleague. Add that contributors sending in patches from the internet may not hang around to find out that their patch *fails* in your CI build, and you can see why I think CI tools are an adjunct to keeping a clean trunk, rather than a key tool. The key tool is to not commit regressions
Oh, and I certainly accept that test suites should be comprehensive… I just don’t accept that more time == more coverage, or that there isn’t a trade off between comprehensive and timeliness.