Ovid wrote:
> That's the main reason why our tests don't run on production right now. I
> would like, at the very least, to have a './Build sanity' target to ensure
> that guaranteed non-destructive tests are run, but the strange argument I'm
> facing is that "production should be an exact copy of staging and thus tests
> on staging should be enough".
>
> The word "should" makes my trigger finger itch.
Hey, the programmers should write the code correctly, so why have tests at all?
> I want those tests, but the people arguing are huge Java fans and argue that
> "Java is safe to deploy, why not Perl?"
Are they the same people that argue they don't need tests because they have
type safety? Look, isn't it enough that all the Legos fit together?
Maybe if you couched it in terms of risk management. Weigh the consequences
of when your should's don't vs the cost of making sure your should's do.
--
"Clutter and overload are not an attribute of information,
they are failures of design"
-- Edward Tufte
