> No need for searching the code to see where the behaviour is implemented. With clean code it's obvious, the test will show this method to be at fault. Even without any comments.
So...it sounds like you'd have one broken implementation of the code, and one working implementation, that might just cancel out the effects of the broken one. You're assuming code that has been cleanly written for its whole history, or a lot of love poured into it to develop quality tests for each requirement. How commonly does that actually happen?
That wasn't the most even-keeled response, and it's past the edit window. What I mean to say is that I've never seen anything but a small codebase that couldn't use some in-code explication.
Clear code provides a clear "how". Good test coverage can act as documentation of the proper behavior and help prevent regressions. But I don't see how it follows that clean code makes the location of each implemented feature obvious. It doesn't seem like it would be inherently true.
So...it sounds like you'd have one broken implementation of the code, and one working implementation, that might just cancel out the effects of the broken one. You're assuming code that has been cleanly written for its whole history, or a lot of love poured into it to develop quality tests for each requirement. How commonly does that actually happen?