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

Re: [TDD] Unit testing

Expand Messages
  • Michael Hill
    Steve, sounds like a good call. Shameless plug for others out there: The DoubleDawgDare videos at http://anarchycreek.com/doubledawgdare-series/ show a
    Message 1 of 58 , Jan 7, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Steve, sounds like a good call.

      Shameless plug for others out there:

      The DoubleDawgDare videos at
      http://anarchycreek.com/doubledawgdare-series/ show
      a refactoring screencast which has the big point: first strip the code down
      to the best signal you can get, killing all noise, then work in readily
      revertable small chunks.

      Have fun! This is my favorite part. I wish strangers would just give me
      money to sit at home and tackle their legacy.

      Hill


      On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Steve Howell <showell30@...> wrote:

      >
      >
      > Good stuff. I think I am dealing with a slightly different kind of
      > "interglobulationfulness" than your example, but it is making me think
      > harder about how to restructure my code.
      >
      > I'm not really struggling with the typical problems of how to interact with
      > a GUI, because my input mechanisms are fairly simple, and my output
      > mechanisms are fairly easy to mock. It is more the relationships between the
      > presenters themselves that is causing me consternation. So, in a way,
      > creating more presenters (e.g. subpresenters) will only increase my problems
      > in a way. As I look at my code, I am starting to think that I maybe I should
      > first focus on easy problems, like coming up with better names for some
      > variables, tightening up the view API slightly, and then come back to the
      > harder problems.
      >
      > Cheers,
      >
      > Steve Howell
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • JeffGrigg
      ... That s it! If we want to standardize our test names, then I propose that we use a real standard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system#Prefixes My
      Message 58 of 58 , Jan 10, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        > --- Steve Howell <showell30@...> wrote:
        >> You're still thinking too small! We need zettaTests, or
        >> even...dare I say it...YOTTAtests!

        --- Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...> wrote:
        > No. We need smaller. My yoctotests are a quintillionth the
        > size of your microtests.

        That's it! If we want to standardize our test names, then I propose that we use a real standard:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system#Prefixes

        My "femto-tests" are smaller than yours: They tests individual quantum fluctuations within bits in the code under test (rather than lines, branches or conditions). My "mega-tests" check to see if the universe exists. With the Large Hadron Collider firing up, I figure we need to keep an eye on that one.

        >;->
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.