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

Re: [XP] UI Changes and communication to QA

Expand Messages
  • Seyit Caglar Abbasoglu
    ... We might need to test whether we are using the third-party widgets in a way we want to. For example we can test our controller using fakes. And we know
    Message 1 of 77 , Apr 1, 2007
      >
      > I thought it was a rule of thumb to test our own code, and not to test
      > "framework" or "plumbing" code. Third-party widgets are to be tested
      > by the third party that writes them. No?



      We might need to test whether we are using the third-party widgets in a way
      we want to. For example we can test our controller using fakes. And we know
      widgets will work when we bind our controller (presenter) properly.

      But, how do we know, if we bound them together, properly (as the way we
      want)?
      Secondly, how can we know, if we bound them together properly (as the way we
      want), widgets will create the results that we want (not we expect)?

      We need to test those things, either manually or automatically. I prefer not
      to test manually if it's possible to test manually. If third-party tools are
      test friendly, it's easier to implement some tests for that purpose.




      On 4/1/07, dnicolet99 <dnicolet@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com<extremeprogramming%40yahoogroups.com>,
      > "Steven Gordon"
      > <sgordonphd@...> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > Where I have seen seemingly insurmountable problems with Windows
      > Forms are
      > > the use of opaque 3rd party GUI widgets. If you can convince the
      > team to
      > > consider testability an absolute requirement when deciding on 3rd party
      > > widgets, that helps a great deal.
      > >
      >
      > I thought it was a rule of thumb to test our own code, and not to test
      > "framework" or "plumbing" code. Third-party widgets are to be tested
      > by the third party that writes them. No?
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • dnicolet99
      ... Isn t it unfortunate that it is necessary to say that at all? So many people forget that everything has a context. Dave
      Message 77 of 77 , Apr 4, 2007
        --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "Kelly Anderson"
        <kellycoinguy@...> wrote:
        >
        > TDD is valuable, but at some point it can just become zealotry or
        > religion. Diminishing returns have to be acknowledged to maintain
        > efficiency.
        >
        > -Kelly
        >
        Isn't it unfortunate that it is necessary to say that at all? So many
        people forget that everything has a context.

        Dave
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.