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

Re: [XP] Re: Test Objectives

Expand Messages
  • Laurent Bossavit
    ... What Bill Caputo said : the test-driven program won t crash, because most of its input checking will be done at well-defined boundaries where such checking
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      > So, if I try and summarize those four paragraphs, I gather that on one
      > hand you wouldn't let me off the hook for not finding the defect ("oh,
      > we'll add a test for that"), but on the other you would accept the
      > blame as the customer for not having stated that you wanted that
      > scenario covered up front? ("doing our programs a disservice when we
      > encourage them to become complex, defensive and bulletproof.") Or am I
      > missing something?

      What Bill Caputo said : the test-driven program won't crash, because
      most of its input checking will be done at well-defined boundaries
      where such checking is simple to do once and only once.

      So, yes, as Customer it is my job to think of weird combinations of
      input data that I *still* want to be covered by the system; but it's
      your job as a programmer to write well-designed programs, and it
      seems to me that this will perforce imply a degree of robustness.
      Which is a lucky break for all involved. :)

      -[Morendil]-
      Reading this tagline will void its warranty.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.