▲ | strogonoff 6 days ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
The benefit is certainty that the system you are building and delivering to people works. If that benefit is little, then I don’t quite understand the point of testing. > it's also easy to manually test while developing during QA and UAT. As I said in the original comment, e2e tests can definitely be manual. Invoke your CLI, curl your API, click around in GUI. That said, comprehensively testing it that way quickly becomes infeasible as your software grows. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | dsego 6 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
> The benefit is certainty that the system you are building and delivering to people works. I'd say that works and works correctly and covers all edge cases are different scenarios in my mind. Looking at an exaggerated example, if I build tax calculator or something that crunches numbers, I'd have more confidence with a few unit tests matching the output of the main method that does the calculation part than a whole end-to-end test suite. It seems wasteful to run end to end (login, click buttons, check that a UI element appears, etc) to cover the logical output of one part that does the serious business logic. A simple e2e suite could be useful to check for regressions, as a smoke test, but it still needs to be kept less specific, otherwise it will break on minor UX changes, which makes it a pain to maintain. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|