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

Re: [XP] The amazing misunderstanding of XP

Expand Messages
  • Chris Dollin
    ... I don t know if it s good unit test coverage, but Jena has a fair few unit tests. (9682 dynamic tests at the last run I have here; but some of those are
    Message 1 of 49 , Feb 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On Monday 30 January 2006 17:31, Jeff Langr wrote:

      > Maybe the pairing session could be against an open source base. That'd
      > also allow for the candidate to familiarize himself or herself with the
      > code base, possibly even choosing one ahead of time. Aside question: is
      > there a short list anywhere of open source projects that have good unit
      > test coverage? I know of Fitnesse and JUnit of course. What are some of
      > the other ones?

      I don't know if it's "good" unit test coverage, but Jena has a fair
      few unit tests.

      (9682 dynamic tests at the last run I have here; but some of those
      are automatically generated tests, not hand-written, and there are
      bunches of paramterised tests.)

      --
      Chris "understanding is a three-edged sword" Dollin
    • whojgalt04
      ... could ... candidate ... It wasn t pair programming, but in the last job I had, I later found my interview test code in the production system. I looked at
      Message 49 of 49 , Feb 7, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Larry Brunelle
        <brunelle@...> wrote:
        >
        > Steven Gordon wrote:
        > > I wonder how much of the code produced by pairing with candidates
        could
        > > actually be leveraged. Would there be an obligation to pay the
        candidate
        > > for an hour of work if the code developed in the pairing session was
        > > actually used?

        > o Regardless of good faith, who DOES own that code?


        It wasn't pair programming, but in the last job I had, I later found
        my interview test code in the production system. I looked at it as a
        compliment, but it did strike me a little off, and I still joke about
        how they used me...

        I'd say that the upstanding way to do it is that the test code is
        destroyed, except for maybe a printed copy in the employee's file, and
        if he is hired, then he can do it again "for real" once on the job if
        needed. It just avoids any misunderstandings or temptations that way.

        --Kyle Bennett
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.