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

Re: [XP] Re: News from the Java refactoring browser

Expand Messages
  • David Corbin
    ... I might call this a functional test (depending on how you ve written it). It is still somewhat white box, but it deals with very large units. It also
    Message 1 of 54 , Jan 31, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Dossy wrote:
      >
      >
      > > I would not think it useful to refer to my day to day work with my own code
      > > as acceptance tests. I could be wrong. And the Cubs could win the Series.
      >
      > Well, web-based testing can be very slow, so running all your unit
      > tests can be quite time consuming (yes, I know about the "doctor, doctor"
      > response to this). What I've done instead is to create acceptance
      > tests for my own code, that doesn't test a particular object or chain
      > of objects, but insteads tests whole subsystems without actually paying
      > much attention to the details of its inner-workings.

      I might call this a functional test (depending on how you've written
      it). It is still somewhat white box, but it deals with very large
      units. It also tests using a complete system (in your example, a real
      web-server), rather than a simulated one. Where the line between FT
      and UT is really drawn, I can verbalize.

      >
      > I guess you'd just call these unit tests as well, just with a larger
      > scope ... I guess I could accept that. (Especially after Jim's
      > definitions helping me get things straight in my head.) However,
      > just because I wrote, what I call, my acceptance tests in a white-box
      > fashion (because I had the privilege of knowing the code) doesn't
      > mean that the same tests couldn't have been done in a black-box
      > fashion since I'm only testing higher-level functionality at this
      > point.
      >
      > Maybe you'd argue that I shouldn't be writing these tests, or that
      > I really AM writing acceptance tests for the customer at this point...
      > however, these aren't tests that the customer has asked for as part
      > of their acceptance tests, they're just tests I run in place of the
      > battery of smaller unit tests (which were helpful for getting the
      > code to the current state it's in, of course) to try and save time.
      >
      > - Dossy
      >
      > --
      > Dossy Shiobara mail: dossy@...
      > Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/
      >
      > To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...
      >
      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...
      >
      > Ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com

      --
      David Corbin
      Mach Turtle Technologies, Inc.
      http://www.machturtle.com
      dcorbin@...
    • David Corbin
      ... I might call this a functional test (depending on how you ve written it). It is still somewhat white box, but it deals with very large units. It also
      Message 54 of 54 , Jan 31, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Dossy wrote:
        >
        >
        > > I would not think it useful to refer to my day to day work with my own code
        > > as acceptance tests. I could be wrong. And the Cubs could win the Series.
        >
        > Well, web-based testing can be very slow, so running all your unit
        > tests can be quite time consuming (yes, I know about the "doctor, doctor"
        > response to this). What I've done instead is to create acceptance
        > tests for my own code, that doesn't test a particular object or chain
        > of objects, but insteads tests whole subsystems without actually paying
        > much attention to the details of its inner-workings.

        I might call this a functional test (depending on how you've written
        it). It is still somewhat white box, but it deals with very large
        units. It also tests using a complete system (in your example, a real
        web-server), rather than a simulated one. Where the line between FT
        and UT is really drawn, I can verbalize.

        >
        > I guess you'd just call these unit tests as well, just with a larger
        > scope ... I guess I could accept that. (Especially after Jim's
        > definitions helping me get things straight in my head.) However,
        > just because I wrote, what I call, my acceptance tests in a white-box
        > fashion (because I had the privilege of knowing the code) doesn't
        > mean that the same tests couldn't have been done in a black-box
        > fashion since I'm only testing higher-level functionality at this
        > point.
        >
        > Maybe you'd argue that I shouldn't be writing these tests, or that
        > I really AM writing acceptance tests for the customer at this point...
        > however, these aren't tests that the customer has asked for as part
        > of their acceptance tests, they're just tests I run in place of the
        > battery of smaller unit tests (which were helpful for getting the
        > code to the current state it's in, of course) to try and save time.
        >
        > - Dossy
        >
        > --
        > Dossy Shiobara mail: dossy@...
        > Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/
        >
        > To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...
        >
        > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...
        >
        > Ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com

        --
        David Corbin
        Mach Turtle Technologies, Inc.
        http://www.machturtle.com
        dcorbin@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.