I think replies mentioning automatic unit test generation miss the point.
To me, the value of copilot helping to write tests is that we, the engineers, come up with the test cases, and copilot helps write the code for that case.
I think humans will still be more imaginative in the test cases they can dream up (although I’ve never used an automatic generator, maybe they’re better than I think), but almost all test code is boilerplate, either in the setup or the assertions.
If I don’t have to write that repetitious, yet slightly different boilerplate for each test case, that frees me up to design other interesting test cases (as opposed to getting tired of the activity by the time I cover the happy path) or move on to the next bug/feature work.
To me, the value of copilot helping to write tests is that we, the engineers, come up with the test cases, and copilot helps write the code for that case.
I think humans will still be more imaginative in the test cases they can dream up (although I’ve never used an automatic generator, maybe they’re better than I think), but almost all test code is boilerplate, either in the setup or the assertions.
If I don’t have to write that repetitious, yet slightly different boilerplate for each test case, that frees me up to design other interesting test cases (as opposed to getting tired of the activity by the time I cover the happy path) or move on to the next bug/feature work.