I can see them being useful for reducing the tedious cases. Especially the failure paths. Otherwise, my view is that if a unit test can be easily auto generated and the code is not already covered by a feature/integration test, then maybe it's a waste of time to look at it. I'd be more interested in integration tests generated from a description... which doesn't work that great yet.
Adding the simple unit tests ensures the current design of the internals is suddenly more "final" than before, and maybe more than intended.
The idea behind the facebook paper was to generate extra tests in the style of the ones that exist that cover extra cases.
Generating tests from a description will likely suck because the LLM will just generate obvious tests and possibly make a logic mistake while you want the tricky cases.
Comments
I can see them being useful for reducing the tedious cases. Especially the failure paths. Otherwise, my view is that if a unit test can be easily auto generated and the code is not already covered by a feature/integration test, then maybe it's a waste of time to look at it. I'd be more interested in integration tests generated from a description... which doesn't work that great yet.
Adding the simple unit tests ensures the current design of the internals is suddenly more "final" than before, and maybe more than intended.
The idea behind the facebook paper was to generate extra tests in the style of the ones that exist that cover extra cases. Generating tests from a description will likely suck because the LLM will just generate obvious tests and possibly make a logic mistake while you want the tricky cases.