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

Re: [extremeperl] Terrence the Hypocrite

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.