>> When people talk about "unit tests", a unit doesn't refer to the common pattern of "a single class". A unit is a piece of the software with a clear boundary. It might be a whole microservice, or a chunk of a monolith that is internally consistent.
Its OK to dislike unit testing, but please don't redefine the term to avoid it. That's not helpful. Instead try to find the papers (by NASA or IBM?) That show unit testing finds only very few actual bugs, making it low value.
That said, there are IMHO some units worth testing more.
They aren't redefining it though. The term has always been fuzzy. A common boundary of unit testing has always been a module's publicly exposed interface.
Wasn't the "clear boundary" definition the original, that was later interpreted as syntactic boundary (function/class) instead of semantic boundary (a chunk of business logic)?
Its OK to dislike unit testing, but please don't redefine the term to avoid it. That's not helpful. Instead try to find the papers (by NASA or IBM?) That show unit testing finds only very few actual bugs, making it low value.
That said, there are IMHO some units worth testing more.