← Back to context

Comment by moregrist

1 day ago

While this sounds pretty frustrating, there is at least a small upside: at least you get to the obvious-but-ignored bugfixes.

Most smaller places don’t have the bandwidth and many larger ones don’t have the desire.

I’m not sure if that makes up for bugs potentially introduced in the refactors, though.

Well, when the owner asks for a whole test suite that didn't exist to get a fix in, what most likely happens is that you just wasted your time in a draft CL that will get lost.

  • Do you mean the relevant code area(s) didn't have (sufficient) tests? You're being asked to backfill those missing tests in addition to your fix?

    • Yes. I've experienced pushback from obvious fixes with requests to formally test their code for the first time.

      All because it may break someone. Even when I presented a real defect based on docs/comments and fixed it. You'd think that if they truly cared about breakages they'd already have some tests for it from where I can easily start.

      1 reply →

  • They aren't asking for you to write tests because 'it benefits them', they are asking you to write tests because as a professional engineer, you should write tests, and not just yolo it.

    Look, sometimes you may have good reasons for why a test is impractical. You are allowed to push back, or look for a different reviewer. There's a hundred thousand people in the firm, you should be able to find one or two that will let you submit literally anything that compiles.

    But most of the time, the reviewer is giving you advice that you should take.

    • If you are turning a button to a slightly different shade of blue and it's not a button you own, the owner of the button should not be asking you to write tests for the button.

      4 replies →