I'm a Rails dev, I do mostly test driven development, but my current bit of heresy is that there are some tests with low or negative ROI that are not worth writing.
Here are some examples: I almost never test at the view level, and barely at the controller level, and instead skip to the integration level. View, and even controller-level tests are brittle. If I'm going to spend time on brittle tests, I'd rather it be at the highest level. My thinking is, if your app can run a marathon, it can probably also walk. I'd also rather my test be married to output than to implementation details, as that gives more ways the code can change and still not break the test.
I feel like some folks view testing like a religion, or code coverage percent as a "score" in the game of coding.
Here are some examples: I almost never test at the view level, and barely at the controller level, and instead skip to the integration level. View, and even controller-level tests are brittle. If I'm going to spend time on brittle tests, I'd rather it be at the highest level. My thinking is, if your app can run a marathon, it can probably also walk. I'd also rather my test be married to output than to implementation details, as that gives more ways the code can change and still not break the test.
I feel like some folks view testing like a religion, or code coverage percent as a "score" in the game of coding.