I think the categorisation of tests is sometimes counterproductive and moves the discussion away from what's important: What groups of tests do I need in order to be confident that my code works in the real world?

I want to be confident that my code doesn't have race conditions in it. This isn't easy to do, but it's something I want. If that's the case then your unit test might pass sometimes and fail sometimes, but your CI run should always be red because the race test (however it works) is failing.

This is also hints at a limitation of unit tests, and why we shouldn't be over-reliant on them - often unit tests won't show a race. In my experience, it's two independent modules interacting that causes the race. The same can be true with a memory bug caused by a mismatch in passing of ownership and who should be freeing, or any of the other issues caused by interactions between modules.

"Unit test" refers to documentation for software-based systems that has automatic verification. Used to differentiate that kind of testing from, say, what you wrote in school with a pencil. It is true that the categorization is technically unnecessary here due to the established context, but counterproductive is a stretch. It would be useful if used in another context, like, say: "We did testing in CS class". "We did unit testing in CS class" would help clarify that you aren't referring to exams.

Yeah, Kent Beck argues that "unit test" needs to bring a bit more nuance: That it is a test that operates in isolation. However, who the hell is purposefully writing tests that are not isolated? In reality, that's a distinction without a difference. It is safe to ignore old man yelling at clouds.

But a race detector isn't rooted in providing verifiable documentation. It only observes. That is what the parent was trying to separate.

> I want to be confident that my code doesn't have race conditions in it.

Then what you really WANT is something like TLA+. Testing is often much more pragmatic, but pragmatism ultimately means giving up what you want.

> often unit tests won't show a race.

That entirely depends on what behaviour your test is trying to document and validate. A test validating properties unrelated to race conditions often won't consistently show a race, but that isn't its intent so there would be no expectation of it validating something unrelated. A test that is validating that there isn't race condition will show the race if there is one.

But that's not the kind of test that will expose a race condition 1% of the time. The kinds of tests that are inadvertently finding race conditions 1% of the time are focused on other concerns.

So it is still not a case of a flaky test, but maybe a case of a missing test.

What if CI didn't have to involve any configuration, could run in 30sec instead of 30min, and would be reproducible locally?

I was far more frustration intolerant earlier in my career, part of which I can now attribute to undiagnosed AuDHD. Although I can't say that I've mastered frustration tolerance, I've learned to moderate it to the point that I'm far more effective now.

The real key to success in complicated org is not just dealing effectively with frustration, but the ability to realize what the stakes really are in a complex organization. I've seen people promoted to the stratosphere not for successfully completing a project, but for keeping the wheels on the bus in spite of what happened to the project. This can at times involve repeatedly and energetically referring to failure as success.

Practices? Medication? Etc.

I loved @Schiendelman’s answer, and I believe that prioritizing mental and physical health is a prerequisite for tolerating frustration effectively. For me, it's been more about a change in practices and perspective.

For example, I never react in the moment to professional frustration beyond listening and asking sincere questions. I've learned that I need time to respond, and even to consider whether I should respond at all.

If I find myself awake at 4am ruminating about an aspect of my company or product, I remind myself that I may be taking it (and myself) a bit too seriously, and reassure myself that it can safely be tabled until tomorrow.

There's wisdom in the Serenity Prayer: "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference."

I have noticed that on the mornings where I do some exertion before anything else—a run, some yoga, etc.—that my ability to "receive" and process the things that come at me is so much better. It feels like there's a waiting room, whereas otherwise, whatever comes at me gets a 1:1 response.

Have you found weightlifting to be specifically beneficial, or is that just your morning workout of choice?

It is more beneficial than cardio in raising my base caloric burn, though I also like running and hiking when I can!

It takes less time each day than cardio for giving me the kind of focus and calm improvements I want.

It has a much bigger impact on physical appearance as well. Something I've learned is that more muscle mass really does translate to more respectful treatment from basically every other human in your life.

I’ve always been a pretty decent writer, and a passable tutor. It wasn’t that I couldn’t divest knowledge to other people, we just hadn’t made the time. I never did get onto that other project, the company started spiraling before I convinced that manager the team could deal without me. But I have seen what happens when a senior person becomes the bottleneck, or when only one voice champions an idea in meetings, and I do a better job of carving out bits of subject matter to co-create with peers or bequeath to people I’m mentoring. There’s plenty of breathing room between Work Yourself Out of a Job and Being Indispensable, where you have enough capacity that you can participate in new ideas that strike your fancy.

Also I still don’t think there’s a great argument for [Char] other than its historical baggage.