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

Re: [XP] Re: Binary search experiment proves nothing?

Expand Messages
  • Jim Standley
    I did add more tests one at a time, and they did uncover more bugs with boundaries, different sized arrays, etc. so I don t consider the exercise a failure
    Message 1 of 8 , May 30, 2002
      I did add more tests one at a time, and they did uncover more bugs with
      boundaries, different sized arrays, etc. so I don't consider the exercise a
      "failure" by any means. Kent's "test infected" example of evolving the
      money object was much more interesting than binsearch. It intrigued me
      because the method signature changed two or three times during the process.
      We've been buildling back-end services lately, and the notion of changing
      interfaces gave me some concern.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Bill de hÓra" <dehora@...>
      To: <extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 7:13 AM
      Subject: RE: [XP] Re: Binary search experiment proves nothing?



      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
      Hash: SHA1


      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Ron Jeffries [mailto:ronjeffries@...]
      > Sent: 30 May 2002 09:42
      > To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [XP] Re: Binary search experiment proves nothing?
      >
      >
      > Around Wednesday, May 29, 2002, 10:42:02 PM, Jim Standley wrote:
      >
      > > I finally tried this exercise today, and found I didn't do
      > > "test first" very well. I built a test and an empty method
      > (return -1) and
      > > verified that JUnit was working, but then jumped to the full
      > > algorithm. I added more tests that revealed a few flaws
      > but did not
      > > cause me to change the intended functionality. Did I do it
      > wrong, or
      > > was this just an awkward example?
      >
      > It's not a very good example, but I was able to eke out a
      > little incremental stuff in my tries. It was a reach.


      Hi Jim

      I agree (what Ron said). If I were to do this again, I think
      sitting down for a few minutes and thinking about the /tests/ you'd
      need would have been enormously helpful (oo loop, off by 1, bad
      midpoint, arrays of size 1, 2, odd and even sized arrays, found
      target in no more than X chops, and so forth). Ron says he likes to
      pass one test at a time, but writing a few down on a pen and paper
      as they come to mind wouldn't hurt (would it or would that be big
      testing upfront?).

      Bill de hÓra

      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
      Version: PGP 7.0.4

      iQA/AwUBPPYJYOaWiFwg2CH4EQKFEQCfU+w3EDsRxkciRLvm1YMxbvPt3/QAoJci
      9dB/IxpHma3XZmVYgw3Ej5S1
      =y8nK
      -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


      To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...

      To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...

      ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.