We always called them "Unit Tests." Same for what we now call Test Harnesses.
Sometime in the last decade or so, "Unit Test" has become a lot more formalized, to mean the code-only structural testing we see, these days.
I tend to like using Test Harnesses[0], which are similar to what you described.
Unit tests are great, but I have found, in my own work, that 100% code coverage is often no guarantee of Quality.
I have yet to find a real "monkey testing" alternative. I suspect that AI may give us that, finally.
Oh, I also do "Discovery Coding," but I call it "Evolutionary Design."[1] I think others call it that, as well.
[0] https://littlegreenviper.com/various/testing-harness-vs-unit...
[1] https://littlegreenviper.com/various/evolutionary-design-spe...
We always called them "Unit Tests." Same for what we now call Test Harnesses.
Sometime in the last decade or so, "Unit Test" has become a lot more formalized, to mean the code-only structural testing we see, these days.
I tend to like using Test Harnesses[0], which are similar to what you described.
Unit tests are great, but I have found, in my own work, that 100% code coverage is often no guarantee of Quality.
I have yet to find a real "monkey testing" alternative. I suspect that AI may give us that, finally.
Oh, I also do "Discovery Coding," but I call it "Evolutionary Design."[1] I think others call it that, as well.
[0] https://littlegreenviper.com/various/testing-harness-vs-unit...
[1] https://littlegreenviper.com/various/evolutionary-design-spe...