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

Re: [XP] Agile requirements

Expand Messages
  • Rick Mugridge
    ... Hi David, I have no problem, in principle, in using Fit for unit tests and JUnit for storytests. It depends on the abilities of the human readers and the
    Message 1 of 21 , Dec 2, 2005
      David Chelimsky wrote:

      > ...
      >
      >However, I do get a little jealous of my customers who get to express
      >their specs in this beautiful, simple, easy to glean tabular format when
      >I feel sort of stuck w/ a less expressive tool (for certain problems) in
      >xUnit. Obviously xUnit is extraordinarily expressive, and I have no
      >interest in replacing xUnit w/ FIT as a unit testing tool. But I do want
      >to be able to take advantage of FIT where it makes sense to do so.
      >
      >-David Chelimsky
      >
      >
      Hi David,

      I have no problem, in principle, in using Fit for unit tests and JUnit
      for storytests. It depends on the abilities of the human readers and the
      writers, and then on the form of the tests as to which is best. (I also
      use Fit for defining builds and other things besides.)

      I do agree that the Customers' storytests need to be kept separate from
      the programmers' Fit unit tests. I also want to keep separate the Fit
      storytests that define the PUBLISHED LANGUAGE (DomainDrivenDesign) for a
      subsystem. And also the storytests that are specific to installation and
      on-site maintenance. And etc.

      Cheers, Rick
    • Rick Mugridge
      Yes, I think they re just tackling different levels of the system. With good tool support, I could image using Fit for all my unit testing as well. I look
      Message 2 of 21 , Dec 2, 2005
        Yes, I think they're just tackling different levels of the system. With
        good tool support, I could image using Fit for all my unit testing as
        well. I look forward to trying this out.

        Cheers, Rick

        Steven Gordon wrote:

        > ...
        >
        >And, as Dadi points out, xUnit supports the automated verification of TDD
        >specifications, allowing them to also function as automated unit tests for
        >any software that purports to satisfy those specifications.
        >
        >Likewise, Fit/Fitnesse supports the automated verification of Application
        >Domain specifications, allowing them to also function as automated
        >integration tests for any software that purports to satisfy those
        >specifications.
        >
        >Two sides of two similar coins.
        >
        >Regards,
        >
        >Steve
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Rick Mugridge
        Hi David, Yes, I agree with your point of view and have seen it work very well in practice. With calculation rules like your validation table, it makes much
        Message 3 of 21 , Dec 2, 2005
          Hi David,

          Yes, I agree with your point of view and have seen it work very well in
          practice. With calculation rules like your validation table, it makes
          much sense to have them expressed directly in the code, taking a domain
          driven design approach. I've noticed that tthe business logic often gets
          little attention, and this helps bring a focus to it.

          Of course, there still needs to be unit tests for driving the
          infrastructure (non domain) parts.

          Cheers, Rick

          David Chelimsky wrote:

          >Jim Shore wrote:
          >
          >
          >>I would suggest using NUnit to test everything that you as programmers
          >>feel should be tested. I don't see Fit as a testing tool.
          >>
          >>I use Fit to provide examples of complicated requirements. I don't try
          >>to test everything with Fit; I mainly just focus on examples of domain
          >>logic. I only occasionally provide examples of UI interaction or data
          >>translation: as a rule of thumb, I don't do it unless the UI interaction
          >> or data translation is complicated or Fit would facilitate discussion
          >>with non-programmers.
          >>
          >>I see NUnit and Fit as being orthogonal. They solve different problems
          >>and it's not that important that they both end up comparing 'expected'
          >>and 'actual' results.
          >>
          >>What's complicated about the application you're building? What's the
          >>"secret sauce"--the magic know-how that your application provides that
          >>no one else does? Provide Fit examples of that.
          >>
          >>I use TDD for everything, even if it has Fit examples too. When I write
          >>my NUnit tests, I use different data than my Fit examples. I TDD from a
          >>programming perspective... using data that reflects my knowledge of the
          >>program's edge cases, zero-one-many scenarios, etc.
          >>
          >>Cheers,
          >>Jim
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >I've generally operated this same way, but I've been having some second
          >thoughts. I was going to just respond here, but it got somewhat verbose
          >so I posted it:
          >http://butunclebob.com/ArticleS.DavidChelimsky.WhyLimitFit.
          >Coincidentally, that decision allowed me to better express some of the
          >things I had started to write in an email.
          >
          >Looking forward to your (Jim's and everyone else's) comments either here
          >or on the blog.
          >
          >Thanks,
          >David
          >
          >
          >
          >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
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Dominic Williams
          ... Surely, evolving an expressive and consise domain-specific language for the programmer tests is exactly the same exercise as what XP tells us to do with
          Message 4 of 21 , Dec 6, 2005
            David Chelimsky started:

            > However, I do get a little jealous of my customers
            > who get to express their specs in this beautiful,
            > simple, easy to glean tabular format when I feel sort
            > of stuck w/ a less expressive tool (for certain
            > problems) in xUnit.

            and Rick Mugridge continued:

            > With good tool support, I could image using Fit for
            > all my unit testing as well. I look forward to trying
            > this out.

            Surely, evolving an expressive and consise
            domain-specific language for the programmer tests is
            exactly the same exercise as what XP tells us to do
            with the code?

            I am wondering what it says about our programming
            languages or our ability to use them creatively that
            programmers should be wanting to use FIT rather than
            code for programmer tests...

            Would you still want to if you were coding in Lisp or
            Smalltalk or Ruby or something?

            Anyway, even with C++ or Java, I don't think I'd want
            to do programmer tests in FIT: when coding tests is
            painful, I know I need to improve the design.

            Regards,

            Dominic Williams
            http://www.dominicwilliams.net

            ----
          • Rick Mugridge
            ... Please notice that I m not advocating this as a general approach! And I doubt that I ll end up wanting to change. But I think it s worth trying it. TDD
            Message 5 of 21 , Dec 6, 2005
              Dominic Williams wrote:

              >David Chelimsky started:
              >
              >
              >
              >>However, I do get a little jealous of my customers
              >>who get to express their specs in this beautiful,
              >>simple, easy to glean tabular format when I feel sort
              >>of stuck w/ a less expressive tool (for certain
              >>problems) in xUnit.
              >>
              >>
              >
              >and Rick Mugridge continued:
              >
              >
              >
              >>With good tool support, I could image using Fit for
              >>all my unit testing as well. I look forward to trying
              >>this out.
              >>
              >>
              >
              >Surely, evolving an expressive and consise
              >domain-specific language for the programmer tests is
              >exactly the same exercise as what XP tells us to do
              >with the code?
              >
              >I am wondering what it says about our programming
              >languages or our ability to use them creatively that
              >programmers should be wanting to use FIT rather than
              >code for programmer tests...
              >
              >
              Please notice that I'm not advocating this as a general approach! And I
              doubt that I'll end up wanting to change. But I think it's worth trying
              it. TDD would be unknown if someone didn't try something that seemed
              very odd to begin with. I often learn something from pushing the
              boundaries, even if I just understand my assumptions better.

              >Would you still want to if you were coding in Lisp or
              >Smalltalk or Ruby or something?
              >Anyway, even with C++ or Java, I don't think I'd want
              >to do programmer tests in FIT: when coding tests is
              >painful, I know I need to improve the design.
              >
              >
              Fit could be useful is in setting up compex object structures, which can
              be a real pain in Java. Ruby, of course, provides much better support
              for this. But I personally prefer statically typed languages as a design
              medium, having seriously tried a variety of types of language.

              So, yes, it highlights the limits of the design of programming
              languages, which are still (mostly) in the days of ascii.

              Cheers, Rick

              >Regards,
              >
              >Dominic Williams
              >http://www.dominicwilliams.net
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.