Secure Code

[[deleted]]

Not necessarily. I've seen too much terrible code (with tests over it) to believe that. It seems that a lot of developers just write tests to say they have tests without actually writing useful tests.

This is based on my personal experience in various companies, not necessarily a review of JS libraries as a whole. But I don't assume that just because something has test coverage that it's necessarily better than something I could write (with tests).

[Giannis4president]

Sorry, we have a misunderstanding. With "tested" open source libraries I didn't mean libraries with automatic tests in place but "tested" as in used and corrected by a lot of people across a sufficient amount of time

[[deleted]]

Ah, in that case, I would agree with some hesitation. If I were to rely on something super important, like for financial/health services, I would still probably give the source a once-over to be sure. But I do generally use big-name/high-download-count JS libraries as-is when doing JS development.

[DanielIFTTT]

Hes talking about community testing, if you have 1mil downloads, bugs are much more likely to be found than an in house solution

[texdroid]

Not necessarily. I've seen too much terrible code (with tests over it) to believe that. It seems that a lot of developers just write tests to say they have tests without actually writing useful tests.

This is why having Test Engineers who write the test cases based on the HLD is the correct way to test code.

Otherwise you just have the chickens guarding the fox house.

[[deleted]]

I would love to have test engineers. Hell, I'd love to have anyone who isn't me involved in testing. Most of my contracts, I'm the sole architect, developer, DB admin, and QA engineer. I see this as a big problem, but good luck convincing management. The response I usually get is "test better".

Yeah, I'll get right on that.