One question, around 30:38, the slides say 54 mutations but the snippet from the report only says 7? From the detailed report later on, I assume 7 (2 + 3 + 2) is correct, but where did the 54 come from in the first place?
I guess you haven't fully realized the power of Mutation testing. You can practice TDD all you want and still have your tests useless (very possible in teams who aim for 100% Code Coverage). Mutation tests tell you if your tests are indeed testing the production code. It's not overkill, it's necessary.
It's not necessary as long as at any time, you start by a failing test and write the right strict minimum of code passing it, you have a coverage that makes sense, that would kill any mutant. It requires a strict discipline of TDD. I practice TDD since 2009 and I follow the strict aspect of it.
That is a idealistic statement you're making only possible in idealistic scenarios. Not everyone in a team follows this to a T and neither is it easy to follow 100% of the time. So as a manager, for example, one cannot just hope that the entire team is working 100% effectively. So one of the ways to follow up with that is Mutation Testing. It is a tool you can use to analyze existing codebases and their tests' effectiveness. Not always is one the developer of a software from it's genesis. It has it's place that cannot be denied.
One question, around 30:38, the slides say 54 mutations but the snippet from the report only says 7? From the detailed report later on, I assume 7 (2 + 3 + 2) is correct, but where did the 54 come from in the first place?
If you practice a good and strict TDD, every part of your code will be justified and effectful; so mutation tests suite will always be green.
Yea but mutation tests will force you to have your test code stay relevant and justified :)
Rakshak Hegde TDD forces you too. Mutation tests + TDD is overkill.
I guess you haven't fully realized the power of Mutation testing. You can practice TDD all you want and still have your tests useless (very possible in teams who aim for 100% Code Coverage). Mutation tests tell you if your tests are indeed testing the production code. It's not overkill, it's necessary.
It's not necessary as long as at any time, you start by a failing test and write the right strict minimum of code passing it, you have a coverage that makes sense, that would kill any mutant.
It requires a strict discipline of TDD.
I practice TDD since 2009 and I follow the strict aspect of it.
That is a idealistic statement you're making only possible in idealistic scenarios. Not everyone in a team follows this to a T and neither is it easy to follow 100% of the time. So as a manager, for example, one cannot just hope that the entire team is working 100% effectively. So one of the ways to follow up with that is Mutation Testing. It is a tool you can use to analyze existing codebases and their tests' effectiveness. Not always is one the developer of a software from it's genesis. It has it's place that cannot be denied.
fabulous