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

Re: [XP] Re: Test execution speed

Expand Messages
  • J. B. Rainsberger
    ... ... No, it doesn t bother me much, and I can t say why. Maybe the problems I m solving at that simple. ... Ah, no; for every /interface/
    Message 1 of 260 , Aug 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      >Ron Jeffries
      >>Dominic Williams
      >>>J. B. Rainsberger

      <snip />
      > When the design of A changes, It may no longer need B and C, but D and E
      > instead. If this happens, the tests have to change to create and use DMock
      > and EMock.
      >
      > Is that the concern? It seems credible. JB, does that happen to you? If so,
      > doesn't it bother you? If not, why not?

      No, it doesn't bother me much, and I can't say why. Maybe the problems
      I'm solving at that simple.

      <snip />
      > Working as JB does, you wind up writing mocks or stubs for every class.

      Ah, no; for every /interface/ or /protocol/ (and for some classes).
      There are generally fewer of these than classes. I have observed
      protocols converging quite quickly to something stable, so that the vast
      majority of changes in the system are at the implementation level, so
      there's little ripple effect.

      <snip />
      > That has been my practice as well. In fact I stub and mock very rarely. On
      > the other hand, my own programs are small one- or two-person projects. And
      > I agree that there are plenty of ways to keep the tests fast: the main
      > question is whether one values test speed enough to give it attention, I
      > think.
      >
      > JB? What are your reactions?

      I pushed the whole mock thing to its limit on my last solo project (10
      weeks), which tested some of my hypotheses regarding mock-driven design.
      I had good results--or at least, my poor results came from other poor
      decisions, like rolling my own O/R mapping layer, rather than using
      Hibernate--so I'm encouraged to do it again. Perhaps next time I'll pay
      more attention to what's going on and write about it.

      I'm only about 10 papers behind, so what's another on the stack?
      --
      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
      • 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.