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

RE: [XP] Continuous Testing

Expand Messages
  • Kari Hoijarvi
    ... I d refuse to do a routine maintenance for an aeroplane when all the evidence shows, that it s been neglected for too long - thorough maintenance is
    Message 1 of 70 , Sep 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      >-----Original Message-----
      >From: Ron Jeffries [mailto:ronjeffries@...]

      >>>... But if the only benefit is
      >>> finding errors that will be found anyway, no thanks.
      >
      >> This is like saying you don't need a car because you'll get where you want
      >> anyway, just by walking.

      I'd refuse to do a routine maintenance for an aeroplane when all the
      evidence shows, that it's been neglected for too long - thorough
      maintenance is needed. But I don't seem to agree much with Randy.

      >I take Kari's point to be similar to the one that Watts Humphrey made to
      >me. Watts' belief is:

      It's the very same point, that was taken to extreme by Harlan Mills.
      I personally think, that Mills threw the baby out with bathwater when
      he banned unit testing and even compiling in Cleanroom process.
      But I can see the logic in it.

      >I do know that my code, with TDD, is very free of defects compared to what
      >I used to write with nothing but compiler diagnostics and sporadic testing
      >to help me. I still don't know whether intense scrutiny would find
      >additional things, but I can certainly see why it might.

      I don't doubt it at all, TDD is very efficient.

      If you have a list of defects that escaped the development, you can
      estimate how much extra work might buy for you.

      Kari
    • Kari Hoijarvi
      Thanks, I add it to my tool list to check out. Kari ... From: Williams, Chris [mailto:chris.williams@crt.xerox.com] ... In the absence of peer code reviews, I
      Message 70 of 70 , Sep 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks, I add it to my tool list to check out.

        Kari

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Williams, Chris [mailto:chris.williams@...]

        > good up to certain point. Finding bugs with adding tests later is
        > notoriously inefficient. Reviews rock.

        In the absence of peer code reviews, I found FindBugs to be helpful. Caught
        many gaffes of mine with equals(), hashCode(), exposing internal objects,
        waits and notifies, etc.

        http://findbugs.sourceforge.net/

        I definitely recommend it for the Java folks out there. I use it
        intermittently to just double-check myself, since my workplace doesn't do XP
        (gasp!) or code reviews.

        Chris
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.