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

Re: [XP] Test execution speed

Expand Messages
  • J. B. Rainsberger
    ... Mind you, my experience comes principally from solo projects, and one needn t communicate much with oneself. ... So far, so good. -- J. B. Rainsberger,
    Message 1 of 260 , Jul 30, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Ron Jeffries wrote:

      > On Friday, July 30, 2004, at 4:44:38 PM, J. B. Rainsberger wrote:
      >
      >
      >>>I see the value of this. But I have a fear. Do you find that you get into
      >>>integration problems very frequently, where two or more classes are passing
      >>>their isolated tests but don't play well together? What's your experience
      >>>and practice on that?
      >
      >>Hm. I don't remember this ever happening. (Different from "This has
      >>never happened".)
      >
      > This is the part I was worried about, whether it happens often enough that
      > one would notice. I'm often leery of the approach of mocking everything
      > (which I guess you must be doing a lot) because of this fear ...

      Mind you, my experience comes principally from solo projects, and one
      needn't communicate much with oneself.

      > Yes, approaches good. Was concerned whether it happened often enough to
      > care. I gather for you the answer is no. Cool.

      So far, so good.
      --
      J. B. Rainsberger,
      Diaspar Software Services
      http://www.diasparsoftware.com :: +1 416 791-8603
      Let's write software that people understand
    • Ilja Preuss
      ... Yes, but I thought that we were talking about a test that was wrong. Not sure wether that matters, though... Cheers, Ilja
      Message 260 of 260 , Aug 18, 2004
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Adrian Howard wrote:
        > On 17 Aug 2004, at 12:22, Ilja Preuss wrote:
        > [snip]
        >> It's certainly the case that without pairing/reviews I am more
        >> likely to
        >> *miss* tests - but I don't think that I get more *wrong* tests that
        >> cancel out with wrong implementation...
        >
        > I think it could happen over time.
        >
        > - Lack of pairing might mean I miss duplication so a bit
        > of business logic gets into foo and bar.
        >
        > - My acceptance test for the business logic only uses foo.
        >
        > - Later I change bar incorrectly, but the foo test still passes.
        >
        > False-pass for that bit of business logic.

        Yes, but I thought that we were talking about a test that was wrong. Not
        sure wether that matters, though...

        Cheers, Ilja
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.