Can a unit test replace works-on-my-machine when completing work?

by Kye   Last Updated July 07, 2017 23:05 PM

I've made a small change to an integration component and have prepared unit tests to cover my work. All new and existing unit tests are passing.

It will take a substantial amount of time to configure and run the component locally as I will need to restore databases, check firewall rules etc.

The definition of Done in terms of development work is unclear.

Is a unit test a better replacement for works-on-my-machine?

Is it seen as unprofessional if I do not confirm the changes manually before passing work over to a test team?



Answers 1


Is a unit test a better replacement for works-on-my-machine?

Yes, it's absurdly better. Unless you've got some sort of containerization to guarantee the configuration of your environment, running on your local machine guarantees nothing. And even then, doing it by hand is just asking for others to screw up doing the same thing by hand. Unit tests verify that the functionality itself works, quickly, reliably, repeatably.

Is it seen as unprofessional if I do not confirm the changes manually before passing work over to a test team?

It can be. Different work environments have different standard operating procedures and expectations. I expect that most environments either wouldn't care that you only ran the unit tests or wouldn't care enough to know that you only ran the unit tests.

Personally, I'll only manually verify things that are for some reason prohibitive to unit test or being picked up by an abundantly sensitive stakeholder.

Telastyn
Telastyn
July 07, 2017 22:57 PM

Related Questions



In c# how do people make complex functions

Updated October 05, 2016 09:02 AM

Who should write Unit Tests?

Updated July 22, 2015 16:02 PM

Help defining code quality processes

Updated May 10, 2016 09:02 AM

Testing an underwriting engine

Updated July 06, 2018 13:05 PM