# Use compile-time DI checks without losing runtime tests

DevFeed: [Use compile-time DI checks without losing runtime tests](<https://devfeed.tech/articles/use-compile-time-di-checks-without-losing-runtime-tests-23957.md>)

Original publisher: [Read original article](<https://cloud-inject.io/notes/compile-time-di-checks/>)

Published: 2026-08-18T00:00:00Z

Content type: tutorial

Language: en

Sources: [Koin - Cloud-Inject.io -Kotzilla](<https://devfeed.tech/sources/koin-cloud-inject-io-kotzilla.md>)

Topics: [test](<https://devfeed.tech/topics/test.md>), [configuration](<https://devfeed.tech/topics/configuration.md>)

Tags: [compiler](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/compiler.md>), [configuration](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/configuration.md>), [dependency](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/dependency.md>), [lifecycle](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/lifecycle.md>), [tests](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/tests.md>), [validation](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/validation.md>)

## AI overview

The article explains how compile-time dependency injection validation can catch structural problems such as missing definitions, invalid qualifiers, and broken constructor paths before application startup. It emphasizes that runtime tests remain necessary for configuration, parameters, lifecycle behavior, and ownership, and recommends using layered validation.

## Source excerpt

Compile-time dependency validation can catch a missing definition, an invalid qualifier, or a broken constructor path before an application starts. That is valuable. It does not prove that runtime configuration, parameters, or lifecycle behavior are correct. Divide the evidence Let compiler validation answer structural questions: Can the graph resolve this constructor path? Does a binding exist for the requested type and qualifier? Is generated wiring compatible with the declaration? Let tests answer behavioral questions: