From: Fabian Ritzmann [mailto:usefri@...
> Need to bring this back on topic for this list. :-)
Oh, I don't know -- we are still sort of on topic.
> --- Fabian Ritzmann <usefri@...> wrote:
> XP as I understand it uses unit tests and system
> tests, unit tests for unit testing and system tests for
> whatever the users want to test, including quality
> aspects like performance, reliability, etc.
We call tests by the user "acceptance tests" or ATs.
I think this is a valid definition across XP and
Scrum but I don't know if other agile methods call
them the same way.
> The combination is very powerful:
> * test as _specification_ from Test-First, and
> * program as executable _specification_ from
> functional programming
> Both strategies drive development more into the
> quantifiable _what_ space, much more than worthless
> "exhaustive requirements documents" or "models".
> Perhaps, this is what we need to concentrate in
> software architecture -- in patterns that tell us
> _what_ to program and that are executable,
>The principle problem is that provable (and executable)
>specifications don't help if the specification is wrong.
>And we all know that specifications always change,
>that's why we do Scrum or another Agile development
>method. Of course that shouldn't keep anybody from
>improving the way we are programming these days.
True. In our view, the need for acceptance tests
conducted through people-2-people interaction
never goes away for the exact reasons you list
(and regardless the programming styles used):
- making sure that the specification is not wrong
- making sure that we keep up with changes
for the specification
- making sure that the user experience is
comfortable i.e. timely, convenient, beautiful, etc.
It is just easier, faster and even more economical
in some paradigms of programming to do the above