91 lines
No EOL
3.5 KiB
JSON
91 lines
No EOL
3.5 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"uuid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "ffa93a1b-f239-4c0a-9f34-50cd6532f353"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"langcode": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "en"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"type": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_id": "daily_email",
|
|
"target_type": "node_type",
|
|
"target_uuid": "8bde1f2f-eef9-4f2d-ae9c-96921f8193d7"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_timestamp": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2025-05-11T09:00:20+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_uid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_type": "user",
|
|
"target_uuid": "b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_log": [],
|
|
"status": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"uid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_type": "user",
|
|
"target_uuid": "b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"title": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "Automated tests mean you can make changes quicker"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"created": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2024-01-31T00:00:00+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"changed": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2025-05-11T09:00:20+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"promote": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": false
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"sticky": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": false
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"default_langcode": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_translation_affected": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"path": [
|
|
{
|
|
"alias": "\/daily\/2024\/01\/31\/automated-tests-mean-you-can-make-changes-quicker",
|
|
"langcode": "en"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"body": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "\n <p>Before fixing <a href=\"\/daily\/2024\/01\/30\/tdd-doesnt-mean-you-know-everything-upfront\">yesterday's bug<\/a>, because I'd written automated tests, I ran them to ensure they were all passing.<\/p>\n\n<p>Then, I was able to focus solely on adding the new use case - starting with a failing test to replicate the issue and then getting it to pass.<\/p>\n\n<p>Because it was already tested, I didn't need to worry about breaking any other functionality and introducing regressions.<\/p>\n\n<p>When the new test was passing, I could run the whole test suite and ensure they still passed and things continued to work.<\/p>\n\n<p>Without the tests, I'd either need to check everything else manually (which takes time) or worry that something could potentially be broken.<\/p>\n\n<p>Having tests meant I could be confident that the new and existing functionality worked.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"format": "full_html",
|
|
"processed": "\n <p>Before fixing <a href=\"http:\/\/default\/daily\/2024\/01\/30\/tdd-doesnt-mean-you-know-everything-upfront\">yesterday's bug<\/a>, because I'd written automated tests, I ran them to ensure they were all passing.<\/p>\n\n<p>Then, I was able to focus solely on adding the new use case - starting with a failing test to replicate the issue and then getting it to pass.<\/p>\n\n<p>Because it was already tested, I didn't need to worry about breaking any other functionality and introducing regressions.<\/p>\n\n<p>When the new test was passing, I could run the whole test suite and ensure they still passed and things continued to work.<\/p>\n\n<p>Without the tests, I'd either need to check everything else manually (which takes time) or worry that something could potentially be broken.<\/p>\n\n<p>Having tests meant I could be confident that the new and existing functionality worked.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"summary": null
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
} |