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

Re: Terrence the Hypocrite

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 13 , Apr 8, 2005
      --- 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 2 of 13 , Apr 8, 2005
        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 3 of 13 , Apr 8, 2005
          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 4 of 13 , Apr 8, 2005
            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 5 of 13 , Apr 8, 2005
              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 6 of 13 , Apr 8, 2005
                > 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 7 of 13 , Apr 10, 2005
                  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 8 of 13 , Apr 10, 2005
                    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.