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

RE: [XP] Re: Is object testing enough? -- in-memory Repository

Expand Messages
  • William Pietri
    ... Indeed. It would be great if you could post your experiences, perhaps just by forwarding your answer to my question, to
    Message 1 of 260 , Aug 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sun, 2004-08-01 at 14:26, Steve Bate wrote:
      > Hmmm, we're kinda drifting off the topic of this thread aren't we?
      > If I didn't mention if before, we do conventional mocking of our
      > repositories for unit test purposes.

      Indeed. It would be great if you could post your experiences, perhaps
      just by forwarding your answer to my question, to
      prevayler-discussion@.... I'm sure they'd be
      interested to hear the details.

      Thanks,

      William
    • 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
      • 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.