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

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

Expand Messages
  • Kari Hoijarvi
    ... Depends. If you write security related code, doing it without inspections is dangerous. And it s difficult to test. Another is exception handling. The
    Message 1 of 260 , Aug 3, 2004
      >-----Original Message-----
      >From: Randy MacDonald [mailto:randy@...]
      >
      >"Bugs that have existed a long time without anybody noticing. Inspections
      >is the best way to find them."
      >
      >If it was important to find them, why did they not get noticed? That
      >inspections solve marginal problems well is itself marginal.
      >
      >If nobody notices a bug, is it really there?

      Depends. If you write security related code, doing it without
      inspections is dangerous. And it's difficult to test.

      Another is exception handling. The possible code paths make it
      impossible to get any good path coverage. And users probably don't
      get anything real done in case of errors. Somehow I just feel,
      that inspecting exception handling is important.

      Concurrency is another. But my main point is, that inspections
      make me go faster. Finding marginal bugs is an added bonus.

      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
        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.