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

test-suite as bug-base?

Expand Messages
  • Brad Appleton
    On another list, I saw someone say the equivalent of ... There are no bugs. There are only failed tests, incorrect tests, and missing tests. Everything I need
    Message 1 of 349 , Apr 29, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      On another list, I saw someone say the equivalent of ...

      There are no bugs. There are only failed tests, incorrect tests, and missing tests. Everything I need to know about a bug is how to reproduce it and how to repair it. Once I have a test for it and the test is correct, that tells me enough to fix it.

      So instead of tracking my bugs in some system, I should instead use my test-suite. And if there is ever any info I need, I should be able to extract it from whatever mechanism I use to manage and organize and execute and report my tests and their results.

      I thought that sounded very XP-ish, and wondered what the XP-list would think about it :-)

      BTW, what do folks use to "manage" their tests? I assume there is some directory/folder structure and some some method for which tests and kinds of tests are in which files and directories. And that something like ANT is used to to automatically run the tests and report the results (say, right after a build :-). Does anyone do more than that? I mean, do you have so many tests that you need more than just a directory structure and make/ANT to manage it? If so, what do you do and how do you do it (and which tools do you use to help you do it if make/ANT aren't sufficient?)
      --
      Brad Appleton <brad@...> www.bradapp.net
      Software CM Patterns (www.scmpatterns.com)
      Effective Teamwork, Practical Integration
      "And miles to go before I sleep." -- Robert Frost
    • Ron Jeffries
      ... There is a big difference between rational and Rational . ;- Ron Jeffries www.XProgramming.com Example isn t another way to teach, it is the only way
      Message 349 of 349 , May 16, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        On Friday, May 16, 2003, at 6:41:46 PM, Edmund Schweppe wrote:

        > Ron Jeffries wrote:
        >> On Friday, May 16, 2003, at 12:26:22 PM, George Paci wrote:
        >> > Note that, on the substantive points, I basically agree with you.
        >> Well, as any rational man would ... ;->

        > Who here besides Grady Booch is a Rational man? :-)

        There is a big difference between "rational" and "Rational". ;->

        Ron Jeffries
        www.XProgramming.com
        Example isn't another way to teach, it is the only way to teach. --Albert Einstein
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.