I don't understand the obsession with the monetary aspect of testing... The tool is supposed to replace or aid <i>unit</i> testing, i.e. the tests that are written by developers themselves, not the work of QA... whatever savings this tool may produce don't affect the "testing" budget of a real enterprise (which is usually dedicated to the QA needs).<p>On the other hand, I'm very happy to see that testing gets some love from research, and that at least they tried to design a study. Not a very convincing study (with 28 programmers participating), but I can imagine it to be very hard to get a lot of highly paid professionals to participate.
for Typescript, VS Code extension<p>github: <a href="https://github.com/nanofuzz/nanofuzz">https://github.com/nanofuzz/nanofuzz</a>
Testing is I think exactly one of the parts where LLMs can help a lot. I am not so sure in the rest of the codebase.<p>I am of the idea that software in general is written once but read a lot. But, for tests it is a good thing to have really extensive coverage. More than maybe a human is willing to do.