> The quality of the tests.

Very insightful, thanks.

Not sure if you felt I was being snarky, but I wasn't.

The article is discussing the quality of the tests, not quality in general and not the quality of the resulting software.

That was my point.

Saying 'stuffing a test description into the function name improves test quality because it improves test quality' is a cyclical, useless statement.

> The article is discussing the quality of the tests, not quality in general and not the quality of the resulting software.

All of my comments in this thread are about unit tests and test quality, not general software quality.

> That was my point.

I still don't see any valid point being made.

Sorry, I replied to you because I thought you were asking how it affected the final product, and I clarified, in case you had missed it, that it was about the quality of the tests as documentation.

Sorry this whole thing seems to upset you so much. Chill!

It's ok if you misunderstood my comment and the context of this comment chain.

No need to get snarky about it and project your own feelings onto others though.

Snarky?

I was actually surprised you reacted with sarcasm.

Why are you trying to pick a fight?