Tests are good. Generative tests are better. But we don't write them often enough. Why not?

Generative testing isn't new; John Hughes' QuickCheck is now implemented in 30 languages. Yet, it is still not an every day tool for most software teams. Why not?

I have seen that maintaining a generative, or simulation testing suite can require the full-time attention of a few senior engineers. And over time, the tests become complex, brittle, ineffective, and hard to diagnose.

But isn't generative testing supposed to make testing simpler, and more effective?

I believe that it requires a rather different paradigm of thought from what we're used to with traditional testing. And recognising this paradigm shift can help us leverage it effectively.

I'll discuss a holistic perspective of generative testing to elucidate this thought paradigm.

Using a practical scenario, I'll discuss the patterns that emerge from this thinking, and how they address the concerns of making generative tests more effective, and maintainable.