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

Re: [XP] Re: Unit vs Integration TDD

Expand Messages
  • Ron Jeffries
    Hello, Michael. On Monday, November 3, 2008, at 3:37:18 AM, you ... Yes. Often people want a cut and dried set of answers to questions like these. Sorry,
    Message 1 of 36 , Nov 3, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello, Michael. On Monday, November 3, 2008, at 3:37:18 AM, you
      wrote:

      > Whenever I get into discussions about "how much testing we need" at a
      > particular level, I try to reframe the discussion in terms of what the
      > team/individual needs to know. To me, testing is an avenue for posing
      > questions. The number of questions you need depends upon you and the
      > code. Personally, I like the 'Jiminy Cricket' Rule: "Let your
      > conscience be your guide." There's no escaping judgment.

      Yes. Often people want a cut and dried set of answers to questions
      like these. Sorry, there aren't any. This work is almost all about
      design, very little about how to cut a straight line. For that
      matter, I bet there's a lot of art to cutting a straight line, but I
      digress.

      This is work of the mind. To do it well, we have to study, practice,
      and pay attention, so that our judgment becomes better and better
      informed.

      Ron Jeffries
      www.XProgramming.com
      www.xprogramming.com/blog
      No one expects the Spanish Inquisition ...
    • Rick Mugridge
      ... I believe that it s not the scale of the test that should determine who writes it. It s instead whether the tests expresses stuff that s part of the
      Message 36 of 36 , Nov 8, 2008
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        J. B. Rainsberger wrote:
        > I suggest programmers focus on isolated object tests and testers focus
        > on integration and end-to-end tests. If they do that, then they'll
        > come together pretty well at some point.
        > ----

        I believe that it's not the scale of the test that should determine who
        writes it.

        It's instead whether the tests expresses stuff that's part of the
        problem space or part of the solution space. Of course, where that
        boundary sits is critically dependent on the project and who is
        involved. And it changes as the problem, and solution, are better
        understood.

        And there can be several layers, with a solution space at one level
        being a problem space at another. So, for example, I'm happy to use
        storytests for specifying the technical details of communication with
        another system that is managed by another team. And I'm happy to have
        some storytests that mock out that other system so that we can use
        additive "specification"/testing rather than multiplicative across the
        systems. As always, we still need some end-to-end to ensure it's all
        wired together correctly and that failure modes across them are managed
        correctly.

        So I find the usual distinctions between unit tests and end-to-end tests
        and X, Y, Z tests to be unhelpful. As it's too late and too hard to
        refactor the terminology, I try (unsuccessfully) to avoid it.

        I prefer Brian Marick's distinction between customer-facing and
        programmer-facing tests.

        Cheers, Rick
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.