Tests are written for others first, only then for yourselfThere are only few cases, where tests are written to check whether the code works. In most cases writing test is not the most efficient way to check. Instead, tests are written primarily to catch regressions when unrelated changes are made. Since it's quite easy to break something you don't know about, tests are written to prevent others to break something they possibly don't even consider.
As such, claims "I don't need tests" are pretty much void if there is more than one developer on the project.
Test that hasn't failed at least once has not been proven to test anythingShould be obvious, but if the test has never been red, how do you know that it actually tests something? Maybe the test is simply always green and will not catch any bug!
Tests are just like any other code, they have to be verified. The simple way to do this is to introduce a bug in the code and run the test, to see if it fails.
When code evolves, test suite should evolve with itThe only case when code changes not necessarily cause test changes is refactoring. In all other cases if code changes, but tests don't, the new features are not covered, so the test suite degrades.
Test suite is relevant only if it is kept in sync with code it tests.
Tests should test the smallest possible feature setThis is easier said than done. Isolating different features from one another can be difficult. Testing features is only one part. Ideally it should be easy to find, what got broken when test fails. If test depends on multiple features at the same time, failure of that test shows, that one of these features is broken, but not always tells which one.
There are two solutions here:
- Make tests depend only on one feature, so that test failure indicates a problem with that feature
- Order tests accordingly. If test depends on 3 different features, but 2 of them have been thoroughly tested before, a failure is likely caused by the third
Testing against mocks is inadequateIt is a popular suggestion by unit-tests proponents to mock everything to achieve single feature isolation.
There is a pitfall in doing so: mocks are never a real thing! Testing against mocks only proves that code works with these mocks! There is almost no software in the world, that is 100% compliant with standards they support or even their own documentation (assuming that software has been around for a while). Yet, people for some reason think, that it is possible to keep mocks 100% identical in behavior to the real thing they imitate.
The real implementations evolve over time and mocks have to kept in sync. Sooner or later they diverge. For this reason integration and end-to-end tests are required, in order to make sure the code works with actual real implementations.
Unit testing is inadequateShould be obvious: end users don't care, whether your tests are green or not. They care, whether software works or not. Unit tests can prove that individual components work, but they say nothing about the behavior, when those components are put together.
It's not important, whether code or test is written firstTDD zealots claim otherwise and they are wrong. While TDD can increase the coverage and quality of tests, it does not guarantee that!
What matters in the end is the quality of the code and the quality of the tests. When both are good, no one cares, in what order they were produced.
Only testing your own code is riskyin part this is another argument against TDD...
One of the reasons for doing code review is that it is hard to spot problems in your own code. The same applies to tests - when else drills your code besides yourself, the chances of catching bugs increases.