I hate to admit it, but flaky tests almost always highlight weaknesses in my software architecture.
And fixing a flaky test usually involves making the actual code more robust.
Readit NewsTests are code. Code has bugs. More complex code has more bugs. The more complex your tests, the more bugs in your tests. Who tests the tests? It’s one thing if you rely on functionality provided by a stable testing framework, but I bet grug no like call stacks in own test code.
> Who tests the tests?
To me it's a bit like double entry bookkeeping. Two layers is valuable, but there's rapidly diminishing returns beyond two.
Deleted Comment
I find testing terminology very confusing and inconsistent. Personally, I prefer tests that cover multiple components. Is that an integration test because you test multiple components? What if you system is designed in such a way that these tests are _fast_ because the data access is abstracted away and you can use in memory repositories instead of hitting the database?
I think it's relative, right? That's how abstractions and interfaces work.
I can write a module with integration tests at the module level and unit tests on its functions.
I can now write an application that uses my module. From the perspective of my application, my module's integration tests look like unit tests.
My module might, for example, implicitly depend on the test suite of CPython, the C compiler, the QA at the chip fab. But I don't need to run those tests any more.
In your case you hope the in-memory database matches the production one enough that you can write fast isolated unit tests on your application logic. You can trust this works because something else unit-tested the in-memory database, and integration tested the db client against the various db backends.
jessekv commented on Swiss vs. UK approach to major tranport projects freewheeling.info/blog/sw... · Posted by u/jbyers
> £100M gets spent to resolve the issue
It's even worse than it first appears. There's no evidence that the trains will have any impact on the bats AND there's equally scant evidence that a tunnel will protect the bats from this entirely theoretical harm.
My guess is the tunnel will become the preferred roosting spot for the bats.
jessekv commented on April Fools 2014: The *Real* Test Driven Development (2014) testing.googleblog.com/20... · Posted by u/omot
> We once saw a comment in the generated code that said "I need some coffee".
Why wouldnt you build a tunnel, just like Sydney harbour tunnel or transbay tunnel?
B1M covered this. The video has a fun animation of the political history too:
jessekv commented on Litestar is worth a look b-list.org/weblog/2025/au... · Posted by u/todsacerdoti
jessekv commented on Litestar is worth a look b-list.org/weblog/2025/au... · Posted by u/todsacerdoti
Pretty cool post! I'm not sure how I feel about SQLAlchemy (not the star of the post but mentioned quite a bit); it's such a big ball of state that has so many surprises, I wonder if some people build entirely without it.
I usually just use asyncpg.
https://github.com/nats-io/nats-server/discussions/3312#disc...
(I opened this discussion 2.5 years ago and get an email from github every once in a while ever since. I had given up hope TBH)