Big fan of breaking a test to ensure I'm testing what I think I am. Great way to avoid false positives without having to write your tests first/ follow Test Driven Development, which I've always found tedious. Thanks for eloquently putting this process into words!
Apologies if I am missing something here, but in your example, assuming you wrote your test first and it initially failed because there was no implementation and then you added the same implementation you wrote earlier and the test (without the await) passed, haven’t you ended up in the same place (false positive test)?
I fully agree the idea that you need to see a failing test, but don’t you still have to prove to yourself that the test is failing for the reasons you expected it to fail?
In the case of a subtle bug in the test like this one, does test first really address the problem?
Big fan of breaking a test to ensure I'm testing what I think I am. Great way to avoid false positives without having to write your tests first/ follow Test Driven Development, which I've always found tedious. Thanks for eloquently putting this process into words!
Apologies if I am missing something here, but in your example, assuming you wrote your test first and it initially failed because there was no implementation and then you added the same implementation you wrote earlier and the test (without the await) passed, haven’t you ended up in the same place (false positive test)?
I fully agree the idea that you need to see a failing test, but don’t you still have to prove to yourself that the test is failing for the reasons you expected it to fail?
In the case of a subtle bug in the test like this one, does test first really address the problem?