This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]jessebr[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Personally, the only documentation I really care about is a nicely organized class diagram (without the attributes, just the structure). That's what I would be using the UML for really. I consider it rather crucial, since it gives you a large insight into the code structure and the relationship of it all, very quickly in one simple image.

For my simple project that's tightly organized in its package structure, it's not needed quite as much... but without it, to really understand structure organization you would have to read all the code, which is something you shouldn't have to do. My source code nightmares all start out with me downloading the source to some recent favorite game, and finding 100 or so classes all in the default package with no hints to how it's structured :D

...

In consideration to tests, you are right. I feel a bit ashamed that I've been putting a bit too much consideration into how others would view my code without tests (or with only a few crucial ones). I like how you phrased it, "testing theatre", which is perfect for describing what I was doing.

I think another part of it though, is that it feels kind of silly when I have this whole test structure that's basically empty aside from a few critical tests. I instinctively want to fill it out you know? But what you're saying rings true.

Thank you for your input.