Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
Skip to search.
 

RE: [XP] Unit Test Rulz

Expand Messages
  • Craig
    Hi Developer Tests help developers write code. Customer Tests help customers assert suitability. Seem to be banded about a lot these days. The names quite
    Message 1 of 36 , Sep 8, 2005
      Hi

      Developer Tests > help developers write code.

      Customer Tests > help customers assert suitability.

      Seem to be banded about a lot these days.
      The names quite clearly express intent as well.


      -----Original Message-----
      From: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Dollin
      Sent: 08 September 2005 15:21
      To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [XP] Unit Test Rulz

      On Wednesday 07 September 2005 21:41, Steve Bate wrote:
      > > Phlip wrote:
      > >
      > > Stephen Freeman wrote:
      > > > ...
      > > > Any of these will hurt if you assume it to be true. So unit tests
      > > > should avoid them all?
      > >
      > > Don't call them "unit tests". Call them "tests that drive a clean
      > > design to emerge".
      > >
      > > Coupling to all those problems is bad. Cohering to them is good. So
      > > some tests will work the network layer without a real network. Others
      > > will use a real network, and others will mock the network and inject
      > > faults.
      >
      > Yes. This "unit test" term seems to be causing no end of confusion,
      > especially in an XP context. There are no many different definitions
      > of it that the term seems to have little information content. I like
      > your suggestion, but it's a little verbose. Unfortunately, I don't have
      > a better suggestion.

      "design tests". "designer tests". "driver tests". "exemplar tests".
      "exemplars". "anchor tests." "nails". "nailtests." "atomic tests".
      "thinEnd [OfTheWedge] tests". "navigation tests". "revelation tests".
      "revelations". "testoscopes". "probe tests". "focus tests". "bulb
      tests". "chunk tests." "item tests". "testometers." "testettes."

      Some of those I could like. But surely little tests should be called,
      test- ... no, I'm not going to write that from this address.

      --
      Chris "biological metaphors are powerful" Dollin
      Logic is rational /re/construction. Life is construction.



      To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...

      To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...

      ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Craig
      Hi Developer Tests help developers write code. Customer Tests help customers assert suitability. Seem to be banded about a lot these days. The names quite
      Message 36 of 36 , Sep 8, 2005
        Hi

        Developer Tests > help developers write code.

        Customer Tests > help customers assert suitability.

        Seem to be banded about a lot these days.
        The names quite clearly express intent as well.


        -----Original Message-----
        From: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
        [mailto:extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Dollin
        Sent: 08 September 2005 15:21
        To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [XP] Unit Test Rulz

        On Wednesday 07 September 2005 21:41, Steve Bate wrote:
        > > Phlip wrote:
        > >
        > > Stephen Freeman wrote:
        > > > ...
        > > > Any of these will hurt if you assume it to be true. So unit tests
        > > > should avoid them all?
        > >
        > > Don't call them "unit tests". Call them "tests that drive a clean
        > > design to emerge".
        > >
        > > Coupling to all those problems is bad. Cohering to them is good. So
        > > some tests will work the network layer without a real network. Others
        > > will use a real network, and others will mock the network and inject
        > > faults.
        >
        > Yes. This "unit test" term seems to be causing no end of confusion,
        > especially in an XP context. There are no many different definitions
        > of it that the term seems to have little information content. I like
        > your suggestion, but it's a little verbose. Unfortunately, I don't have
        > a better suggestion.

        "design tests". "designer tests". "driver tests". "exemplar tests".
        "exemplars". "anchor tests." "nails". "nailtests." "atomic tests".
        "thinEnd [OfTheWedge] tests". "navigation tests". "revelation tests".
        "revelations". "testoscopes". "probe tests". "focus tests". "bulb
        tests". "chunk tests." "item tests". "testometers." "testettes."

        Some of those I could like. But surely little tests should be called,
        test- ... no, I'm not going to write that from this address.

        --
        Chris "biological metaphors are powerful" Dollin
        Logic is rational /re/construction. Life is construction.



        To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...

        To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
        extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...

        ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
        Yahoo! Groups Links
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.