Pretty simple, right?
That’s how our minds work. We can’t focus on many things at the same time. TDD acknowledges that and its incremental nature is built around it.
TDD or not, when we have a passing test, we should do an evaluation.
Start with this table:
|Validity||Does it test a valid scenario? Is this scenario always valid?|
|Readability||Of course I understand the test now, but will someone else understand the test a year from now?|
|Speed||How quickly does it run? Will it slow down an entire suite?|
|Accuracy||When it fails, can I easily find the problem is in the code, or do I need to debug?|
|Differentiation||How is this case different than its brothers? Can I understand just by looking at the tests?|
|Maintenance||How much work will I need to do around this test when requirements change? How fragile is it?|
|Footprint||Does the test clean after itself? Or does it leave files, registry handles, threads, or a memory blob that can affect other tests?|
|Robustness||How easy it is to break this test? What kind of variation are we permitting, and is that variation allowed?|
|Deterministic||Does this test have dependencies (the computer clock, CPU, files, data) that can alter its result based on when or where it runs?|
|Isolation||Does the test rely on a state that was not specified explicitly in it? If not, will the implicit state always be true?|
If something’s not up to your standards (I’m assuming you’re a high standard professional) fix it.
Now, I hear you asking: Do all this for every test?
Let’s put it this way: If the test fails the evaluation, there’s going to be work later to fix it. When would you rather do it – now, when the test is fresh in your head, or later, when you have to dive in again, into code that you haven’t seen in 6 months, instead of working on the new exciting feature you want to work on?
It’s testing economics 101. Do it now.