• CameronDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    I have experience with AI generated test suites, and while its good for generating coverage, it isn’t so good for actually ensuring correctness, which is the actual point.

    I’ve watched the robot happily introduce bugs to pass broken tests, and also break tests to match code, and everything in between.

    I don’t want lots of tests, I want good tests.

    • mermella@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      You have to prompt for that, I do that regularly along with refactors. ‘Examine all tests to ensure they are testing functionality and not just passing a test.’ It finds them and will work on it. I think the problem continues to be engineering discipline. People are lazy with AI on multiple levels, not just copy pasta slop.

        • slevinkelevra@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Yeah, I had testers that tested the functionality of a delay… But had set the delay parameter to zero. Well good thing this one case worked, but you didn’t check anything beyond that for correctness at all.

          • CameronDev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            27 minutes ago

            Timing and tests, name a better migraine duo :D.

            We continuously create tests that ensure a process completes in an set amount of time, and every time, we don’t give them enough leeway, and the test will fail randomly if the CI runner gets overloaded.