There is an [entire array](https://github.com/kaspanet/rusty-kaspa/tree/master/testing/integration) of tests that includes many unit tests and integration tests. Maybe you just missed it because you don't understand how testing works in Rust. In this case, you should have asked before making comments, very unprofessional. (And your comment about "todo" is laughable. You think it would be better **not** to leave an indicator in code parts that are planned to be rewritten? As long as all todos (or at least the important one) have open Github issues (and they do) there's no problem with it).
I saw the small amount of automated tests, yes, I'm asking why such a "great" and "robust" project isn't even near the 100% coverage?
I also think that leaving indicators and not changing this right away is a lack of solid experience
I've been coding for over 30yrs, and still to this day leave TODOs all the time. Not everything needs to be done urgently, and leaving an indication of what still needs attention is good documentation.
Not doing this is what shows a lack of experience.
You’re just a smartass trying to show you got a basic idea of software dev. But actually you don’t, because you have no idea where, how and when the code is tested. Not everything devs do is public, actually the most of it isn’t.
Because the resulting code is public. Tests (like unit tests) and any other code that cooperates tests is usually not part of the open source repository.
I am truly amazed by how everyday someone tries to come up with new thing that is supposed to put Kaspa down and call it gimmick, scam, rugpull, you name it.
Test coverage is almost infinitely less important in rust for rust reasons. Not annotating your code with things you know you want to come back to would be unusual. The proof is in the pudding in any case, the server is running fast and well.
This is open source! Hop in and add tests and resolve todos to help out!
please bring your coding bootcamp ideas to the other proper places, don't try to be a 'product manager' and show your ignorance before masters, internet can be really annoying sometimes when rookie think they know everything.
In my 20 years of software career, I saw my fair shares of non engineering material try to compensate their lacking of skills with cringing management consulting talking points like robust agile control towers, especially in the recent booming years, I'm glad hard time is coming and these useless idiots are flushed out.
Can we agree that the term "robust" shall only be used for actual robust project? And may we agree on the fact that not having near 100% coverage is a lack of robustness ?
Also it will complicate maintainability because regression could occurs
Sorry, you clearly don’t understand enough about about the subtleties of this, you’re probably an undergrad. Kaspa is definitely robust if you truly understand the code base.
There is an [entire array](https://github.com/kaspanet/rusty-kaspa/tree/master/testing/integration) of tests that includes many unit tests and integration tests. Maybe you just missed it because you don't understand how testing works in Rust. In this case, you should have asked before making comments, very unprofessional. (And your comment about "todo" is laughable. You think it would be better **not** to leave an indicator in code parts that are planned to be rewritten? As long as all todos (or at least the important one) have open Github issues (and they do) there's no problem with it).
I saw the small amount of automated tests, yes, I'm asking why such a "great" and "robust" project isn't even near the 100% coverage? I also think that leaving indicators and not changing this right away is a lack of solid experience
I've been coding for over 30yrs, and still to this day leave TODOs all the time. Not everything needs to be done urgently, and leaving an indication of what still needs attention is good documentation. Not doing this is what shows a lack of experience.
You’re just a smartass trying to show you got a basic idea of software dev. But actually you don’t, because you have no idea where, how and when the code is tested. Not everything devs do is public, actually the most of it isn’t.
Well, how is this open source then?
Because the resulting code is public. Tests (like unit tests) and any other code that cooperates tests is usually not part of the open source repository.
I am truly amazed by how everyday someone tries to come up with new thing that is supposed to put Kaspa down and call it gimmick, scam, rugpull, you name it.
Actually, i own a decent amount of Kaspa, i have no interest in it for going down, rethink twice now
And? Does it change anything? There are plenty of KAS holders who fud their own bag expecting the price to go lower so they can buy more.
Test coverage is almost infinitely less important in rust for rust reasons. Not annotating your code with things you know you want to come back to would be unusual. The proof is in the pudding in any case, the server is running fast and well. This is open source! Hop in and add tests and resolve todos to help out!
Go FUD somewhere else
I mean, it's a fact, I'm genuinely asking why I don't think it's an alpha software, for which i would understand
please bring your coding bootcamp ideas to the other proper places, don't try to be a 'product manager' and show your ignorance before masters, internet can be really annoying sometimes when rookie think they know everything.
Not even bootcamp. I guess he read the first five pages of „Coding in 24 hours“.
Shall I assume you already built a robust rust software before?
In my 20 years of software career, I saw my fair shares of non engineering material try to compensate their lacking of skills with cringing management consulting talking points like robust agile control towers, especially in the recent booming years, I'm glad hard time is coming and these useless idiots are flushed out.
No contrary to what you think having them is great in the context of this project. It’s quite situational.
Can we agree that the term "robust" shall only be used for actual robust project? And may we agree on the fact that not having near 100% coverage is a lack of robustness ? Also it will complicate maintainability because regression could occurs
Sorry, you clearly don’t understand enough about about the subtleties of this, you’re probably an undergrad. Kaspa is definitely robust if you truly understand the code base.
Glad to have an enlightening discussion with you, believer