Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [extremeperl] Terrence the Hypocrite

Expand Messages
  • Terrence Brannon
    ... Well, you can black-box test before you write code. But whitebox testing, which is based on knowing the internals of the code has to wait until the code is
    Message 1 of 13 , Apr 8 2:44 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Adrian Howard <adrianh@...> writes:


      > Not to mention those of us who now consider testing as a design
      > practice which you need to do before you write code. Relevant no matter
      > what language you're using.

      Well, you can black-box test before you write code. But whitebox
      testing, which is based on knowing the internals of the code has to
      wait until the code is written.


      --
      Carter's Compass: I know I'm on the right track when,
      by deleting something, I'm adding functionality.
    • Karl Scotland
      ... matter ... Really? How do you know what code to write? How do you know what its supposed to do? If you know that, you can write a test for it. By
      Message 2 of 13 , Apr 8 4:24 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In extremeperl@yahoogroups.com, Terrence Brannon <bauhaus@m...>
        wrote:
        > Adrian Howard <adrianh@q...> writes:
        >
        >
        > > Not to mention those of us who now consider testing as a design
        > > practice which you need to do before you write code. Relevant no
        matter
        > > what language you're using.
        >
        > Well, you can black-box test before you write code. But whitebox
        > testing, which is based on knowing the internals of the code has to
        > wait until the code is written.

        Really?

        How do you know what code to write? How do you know what its
        supposed to do? If you know that, you can write a test for it. By
        writing your tests, you are thinking about the interfaces, and
        responsibilties. Thus you are doing design.

        Karl
      • Adrian Howard
        ... Erm. No it doesn t. Why would you think it does? Adrian
        Message 3 of 13 , Apr 8 6:07 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          On 8 Apr 2005, at 10:44, Terrence Brannon wrote:

          >
          > Adrian Howard <adrianh@...> writes:
          >
          >
          >> Not to mention those of us who now consider testing as a design
          >> practice which you need to do before you write code. Relevant no
          >> matter
          >> what language you're using.
          >
          > Well, you can black-box test before you write code. But whitebox
          > testing, which is based on knowing the internals of the code has to
          > wait until the code is written.

          Erm. No it doesn't. Why would you think it does?

          Adrian
        • Adrian Howard
          ... ... and there s also the issue over testing. Doing pointless black-box testing that could never break in any real world situation. Adrian
          Message 4 of 13 , Apr 8 6:14 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            On 8 Apr 2005, at 10:44, Terrence Brannon wrote:

            >
            > Adrian Howard <adrianh@...> writes:
            >
            >
            >> Not to mention those of us who now consider testing as a design
            >> practice which you need to do before you write code. Relevant no
            >> matter
            >> what language you're using.
            >
            > Well, you can black-box test before you write code. But whitebox
            > testing, which is based on knowing the internals of the code has to
            > wait until the code is written.

            ... and there's also the issue over testing. Doing pointless black-box
            testing that could never break in any real world situation.

            Adrian
          • Terrence Brannon
            ... whitebox testing means looking at your code and writing tests based on what you see there. until the code is written there is nothing that can be seen or
            Message 5 of 13 , Apr 8 4:22 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Adrian Howard <adrianh@...> writes:

              > On 8 Apr 2005, at 10:44, Terrence Brannon wrote:
              >
              >> Well, you can black-box test before you write code. But whitebox
              >> testing, which is based on knowing the internals of the code has to
              >> wait until the code is written.
              >
              > Erm. No it doesn't. Why would you think it does?

              whitebox testing means looking at your code and writing tests based on
              what you see there. until the code is written there is nothing that
              can be seen or whitebox-tested.

              --
              Carter's Compass: I know I'm on the right track when,
              by deleting something, I'm adding functionality.
            • Curtis Poe
              ... It s takes me about two seconds to say I m going to write this line of code. I had better write a test for it first. Cheers, Ovid [Non-text portions of
              Message 6 of 13 , Apr 8 4:26 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                On Apr 8, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Terrence Brannon wrote:
                > whitebox testing means looking at your code and writing tests based on
                > what you see there. until the code is written there is nothing that
                > can be seen or whitebox-tested.

                It's takes me about two seconds to say "I'm going to write this line of
                code. I had better write a test for it first."

                Cheers,
                Ovid


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Rob Kinyon
                ... According the XP methodology, whitebox testing is a smell that you didn t write enough tests at first. *wink* Rob
                Message 7 of 13 , Apr 8 5:18 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  > whitebox testing means looking at your code and writing tests based on
                  > what you see there. until the code is written there is nothing that
                  > can be seen or whitebox-tested.

                  According the XP methodology, whitebox testing is a smell that you
                  didn't write enough tests at first. *wink*

                  Rob
                • Adrian Howard
                  ... True, but sometimes I have to write those tests to demonstrate to myself where I have fouled up :-) Adrian
                  Message 8 of 13 , Apr 10 6:43 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 9 Apr 2005, at 01:18, Rob Kinyon wrote:

                    >
                    >> whitebox testing means looking at your code and writing tests based
                    >> on
                    >> what you see there. until the code is written there is nothing that
                    >> can be seen or whitebox-tested.
                    >
                    > According the XP methodology, whitebox testing is a smell that you
                    > didn't write enough tests at first. *wink*

                    True, but sometimes I have to write those tests to demonstrate to
                    myself where I have fouled up :-)

                    Adrian
                  • Adrian Howard
                    On 9 Apr 2005, at 00:22, Terrence Brannon wrote: [snip] ... [snip] I guess my definition of whitebox testing is a little different from that. I consider it
                    Message 9 of 13 , Apr 10 6:46 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 9 Apr 2005, at 00:22, Terrence Brannon wrote:
                      [snip]
                      > whitebox testing means looking at your code and writing tests based on
                      > what you see there. until the code is written there is nothing that
                      > can be seen or whitebox-tested.
                      [snip]

                      I guess my definition of whitebox testing is a little different from
                      that. I consider it testing with knowledge of the internals - no matter
                      when you actually implement them.

                      If I write a test for an implementation specific private method I'll
                      call it a whitebox test even if I write the test before I write the
                      method (which is almost always what I'll do). I guess you'd only call
                      it a whitebox test if you wrote the test after you wrote the method -
                      even if it's exactly the same test ?

                      Adrian
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.