Unit testing is vitally important. There is no that knows the code paths through a module except for the person writing the code. Once it's compiled and running, no other type of testing can know the code paths.

There is another type of "testing" that should be used. Static code analysis. FxCop and StyleCop can do this for you.

>Paul Sheriff wrote in his article
>
>"Testing often helps you improve the quality of your code. As you think about the various scenerios that can go
>wrong, you start to add addition code to handle these scenerios. This leads to your code being more robust
>and more maintainable and user friendly".
>
>I disagree. You can't code for every conceivable issue that might arise, Trying to do so leads to your code being
>more bloated and far less maintainable.
>
>He also listed automaated testing as one possible alternative. I worked for a company that insisited that automated testing
>was the key, We spent more time writing test than we did coding. What's to say the test drivers are correct?
>
>IMHO, and my 25 years of coding experience, unti testing is key. Write small modules that do one thing, and one thing only,
>the test them to ensure they do what they were designed to do. Add them to larger pieces, then that that to ensure everything
>plays well togethere. Continue until the product is done.
>
>I'm curious about other opinions and what other techniques you guys use.