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

Re: [XP] Re: Test execution speed

Expand Messages
  • J. B. Rainsberger
    Dominic Williams wrote: ... But, of course! I do that, too, because it s just good design. For the rest, I use mocks. Perhaps I d given the impression that all
    Message 1 of 260 , Aug 2 9:46 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Dominic Williams wrote:

      I needed to respond to this little bit:

      > Not resorting to mocks and /still/ simplifying A's test
      > forces you to reduce A's dependency on all those other
      > classes, or just to make A easier to setup.

      But, of course! I do that, too, because it's just good design. For the
      rest, I use mocks. Perhaps I'd given the impression that all
      collaboration is tested through mocks. Not so. But the moment I have to
      do real work to set up a collaborator for the object under test to be
      tested, I do the two step: 1. Extract Interface; 2. Introduce Mock.
      --
      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 12:05 AM
      • 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.