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

RE: [XP] Re: TDD, XP and debuggers

Expand Messages
  • Kari Hoijarvi
    While I agree with the general consensus of this thread, I d like to mention, that finding bugs is not the only use of debuggers. Since I m a solo developer,
    Message 1 of 260 , Aug 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      While I agree with the general consensus of this thread, I'd like to mention, that finding bugs is not the only use of debuggers.

      Since I'm a solo developer, pairing is kind of difficult. So I review my code. But I have two problems doing reviews with
      incremental development.

      One is, that many changes tend to sweep thru multiple files. Fortunately windiff can be used with TortoiseCSV, making it easy to see
      what I have actually changed.

      The second, and more difficult problem is the fact, that the same person is doing both writing and reviewing. The same person sees
      things from the same point of view.

      Tomorrow I'm a different person, and I find more problems if I review tomorrow. Unfortunately, this is difficult to do in
      incremental development.

      My solution is to use the debugger for the first run. Inspecting every changed line while the program is actually running is simply
      a better way to review.

      Kari
    • 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.