I think this is highly domain dependent. I currently am working on codebase that has tests for a part of it that are an incredibly useful tool at helping me refactor that particular part. Other parts are so much UI behavior that it is significantly faster to catch bugs by manual testing because the UI/workflow either changes so fast that you don’t write tests for it (knowing they’ll be useless when the workflow is redesigned in the next iteration) or so slow that that particular UI/workflow just doesn’t get touched again so refactors don’t happen to it to introduce more bugs.
I have never found tests to be universally necessary or helpful (just like types). They are a tool for a job, not a holy grail. I have also never met a codebase that had good test coverage and yet was free of bugs that aren’t then found with either manual testing or usage.
Somewhat hyperbolically and sarcastically: if you are good enough to write perfect tests for your code, just write perfect code. If you aren’t perfect at writing tests, how do you know the tests are complete, bug free, and actually useful? :)
I have never found tests to be universally necessary or helpful (just like types). They are a tool for a job, not a holy grail. I have also never met a codebase that had good test coverage and yet was free of bugs that aren’t then found with either manual testing or usage.
Somewhat hyperbolically and sarcastically: if you are good enough to write perfect tests for your code, just write perfect code. If you aren’t perfect at writing tests, how do you know the tests are complete, bug free, and actually useful? :)