Really enjoyed how you emphasized behavioral testing over implementation details, especially the reminder not to over-test language features. That clarity around intention is something we don’t see highlighted often enough.
That said, I’ve noticed teams (like OpenForge
) lean into a hybrid approach where some implementation-level tests are still used to document edge cases or complex workflows. I wonder if dismissing those entirely could create blind spots, especially in legacy systems where business logic is often embedded in “simple” code.
How do you strike a balance between keeping tests clean and still covering nuanced technical debt?
Really enjoyed how you emphasized behavioral testing over implementation details, especially the reminder not to over-test language features. That clarity around intention is something we don’t see highlighted often enough.
That said, I’ve noticed teams (like OpenForge ) lean into a hybrid approach where some implementation-level tests are still used to document edge cases or complex workflows. I wonder if dismissing those entirely could create blind spots, especially in legacy systems where business logic is often embedded in “simple” code.
How do you strike a balance between keeping tests clean and still covering nuanced technical debt?