> This is the part where I simply don't understand the objections people have to coding agents
Because I have a coworker who is pushing slop at unsustainable levels, and proclaiming to management how much more productive he is. It’s now even more of a risk to my career to speak up about how awful his PRs are to review (and I’m not the only one on the team who wishes to speak up).
The internet is rife with people who claim to be living in the future where they are now a 10x dev. Making these claims costs almost nothing, but it is negatively effecting mine and many others day to day.
I’m not necessarily blaming these internet voices (I don’t blame a bear for killing a hiker), but the damage they’re doing is still real.
> i.e. ones that can run offline and fake apis/databases
I can see a place for this, but these are no longer e2e tests. I guess that’s what “hermetic” means? If so it’s almost sinister to still call these e2e tests. They’re just frontend tests.
> A) refactor pretty much everything underneath them without breaking the test
This should always be true of any type of tests unless it’s behavior you want to keep from breaking.
> B) test realistically (an underrated quality)
Removing major integration points from a test is anything but realistic. You can do this, but don’t pretend you’re getting the same quality as a colloquial e2e tests.
> C) write tests which more closely match requirements rather than implementation
If you’re ever testing implementation you’re doing it wrong. Tests should let you know when a requirement of your app breaks. This is why unit tests are often kinda harmful. They test contracts that might not exist.
Because agents are good on this one specific axis (which I agree with and use fwiw), there’s no reason to object to them as a whole
My argument is:
The juice isn’t worth the squeeze. The small win (among others) is not worth the amounts of slop devs now have to deal with.