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

RE: [XP] Aids to guiding acceptance test definition?

Expand Messages
  • Amir Kolsky
    Arrrrrrrrrgh, didn t get my point across again. Let me rephrase :-) I was just pointing out some reasons why doing *only* story driven tests (through fixtures)
    Message 1 of 32 , Feb 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Arrrrrrrrrgh, didn't get my point across again.
      Let me rephrase :-)

      I was just pointing out some reasons why doing *only* story driven tests
      (through fixtures) is not enough.
      And again, Josh, I was not referring to the way *you* guys are doing
      story driven, which includes unit tests, but rather to doing *only*
      story tests.

      Amir Kolsky
      XP& Software


      ]-----Original Message-----
      ]From: Joshua Kerievsky [mailto:joshua@...]
      ]Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 7:30 PM
      ]To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
      ]Subject: Re: [XP] Aids to guiding acceptance test definition?
      ]
      ]
      ]Amir Kolsky wrote:
      ]
      ]>I concur with Somik's analysis of the various tests at the various
      ]>levels. I was just making a point that although you *could* drive
      ]>development directly from story tests, you really shouldn't.
      ]>
      ]>
      ]And how many XP projects have led you to this pearl of wisdom?
      ]
      ]--
      ]I n d u s t r i a l L o g i c , I n c .
      ]Joshua Kerievsky
      ]Founder, Extreme Programmer & Coach
      ]http://industriallogic.com
      ]http://industrialxp.org
      ]866-540-8336 (toll free)
      ]510-540-8336 (phone)
      ]Berkeley, California
      ]
      ]
      ]
      ]To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...
      ]
      ]To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      ]extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...
      ]
      ]ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
      ]
      ]Yahoo! Groups Links
      ]
      ]To visit your group on the web, go to:
      ]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/
      ]
      ]To
      ]unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      ]extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      ]
      ]Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
      ]http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      ]
      ]
      ]
    • J. B. Rainsberger
      ... I consider documentation to be pleasant side-effect of automated tests, in general. It is easy to write tests that are not good documentation, so I don t
      Message 32 of 32 , Feb 3, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Amir Kolsky wrote:

        > ]I don't know why.
        > ]
        > ]Customer Tests are meant to give the customer confidence that the
        > ]features he has requested are present in the product.
        > ]
        > ]Programmer Tests are meant to give the programmer confidence that the
        > ]code he has written does what he intended it to do.
        > ]
        > ]I honestly don't know what there is to debate here.
        > ]--
        > ]J. B. Rainsberger,

        > Not a single word on TDD and Documentation?

        I consider documentation to be pleasant side-effect of automated tests,
        in general. It is easy to write tests that are not good documentation,
        so I don't offer it as a key property of the practice.

        If one writes tests that can act as useful documentation, then so much
        the better. First, I'd like to focus on three key properties

        * PTs force the programmer to use the code they write, driving design
        decisions
        * PTs provide an executable specification, increasing confidence that
        code does the thing right
        * PTs provide a safety net for refactoring
        --
        J. B. Rainsberger,
        Diaspar Software Services
        http://www.diasparsoftware.com :: +1 416 791-8603
        Let's write software that people understand
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.