TDD is great if your management support it and sets timelines accordingly. Management should be setting timelines based on the engineer recommendations. Part of our responsibilities as engineers is to include _all_ of the effort in our estimation. The tests should be part of the engineer's estimate...

The dependencies aren't explicitly written down anywhere, they're just implicit in the order that tests are run. I've read that an advantage of randomized test order is it could reveal hidden inter-test dependencies (e.g. a later test doesn't set the test environment properly and "relies"...

"When you do small changes the yes/no indication of tests is enough, but it isn't always an option, especially when you refactor some internal structure, in which case you kind of expect to break a lot of stuff, and you need to have a way to fix them step by step once it can compile again."...

"If the tests don't have any special structure, the situation when 100 tests all fail at the same time is very unfortunate, all you are left with is to try to pick some test semi-randomly, and start debugging it." Assuming one is not doing a code redesign, having a large number of tests fa...