As I said, an interface can easily be tested, but if it's internal implementation I normally make a design, implement it, and I usually come up with other ideas and I like having the fluidity of making changes as I prototype and such, that way I'm not constrained by a test yet. After I'm done, and documented my choices if necessary, then I add the tests.

[–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Except that then you'll shape your interfaces to drive tests nicely, instead of being, you know, sane and useful (been there, done that).

[–] 3abas@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Unit tested test for accuracy, if your code isn't "shaped to drive tests nicely", it's bad code.

They enforce requirements. You do start with code, you start with the "shape", you architect how your application should be developed and you write unit tests for the functions you already know you want but haven't written the logic to yet, the unit test validates the logic so you don't spend 2 hours hunting down a missing negative sign.

[–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Read my comment again, instead of half way through.

[–] 3abas@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

I did, and I responded to your comment in its entirety. If there's a point you made that I missed, try rephrasing it instead of being snarky...

Unit tests tests known facts and validate requirements, good unit tests are defined after you define your requirements and as you design your infrastructure, not after you write your code. They ensure your code does what you require it to do.

I don't know what part of your comment I missed reading...