> IME, adding that 90% statement coverage is much of the tedium and frustration of the job in Ruby-land--in particular for things that you just get solved for free with something like TypeScript.
I would argue that if your unit test is only testing things which would have been shown by the type system of another language, you are testing at too low of a level. In addition to being tedious, such tests are often very brittle.
Those tests are brittle, and they're also the thing that protects you at module boundaries when those boundaries are being hammered on by different groups of people.
I would argue that if your unit test is only testing things which would have been shown by the type system of another language, you are testing at too low of a level. In addition to being tedious, such tests are often very brittle.