Timeline for TDD - is it just about unit tests? [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
36 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 29, 2013 at 20:16 | history | closed |
gnat Martijn Pieters Walter user40980 Kilian Foth |
exact duplicate | |
| Mar 29, 2013 at 12:50 | comment | added | Giorgio | @CraigTP: I agree that unit testing can help to enforce requirements, but using TDD to produce a good design does not work very well in general because it easily leads to the lost-in-the-details syndrome. ravimohan.blogspot.de/2007/04/learning-from-sudoku-solvers.html | |
| Mar 29, 2013 at 11:02 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 29, 2013 at 20:16 | |||||
| Mar 5, 2013 at 11:58 | comment | added | Songo | well I ATDD is TDD done right! | |
| Mar 5, 2013 at 8:25 | answer | added | snakehiss | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 25, 2013 at 23:03 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Jan 25, 2013 at 23:09 | |||||
| Aug 26, 2012 at 10:15 | comment | added | CraigTP | TDD isn't about unit tests at all. TDD is about design. With TDD your classes and thus your program as a whole has to be designed to be testable. This means low coupling, high cohesion, and all the other benefits you get from SOLID code. The unit tests exist to enforce that, whilst also providing assurance that your code works, and continues to work, when you refactor to further improve design. | |
| Sep 28, 2011 at 18:05 | vote | accept | SiberianGuy | ||
| Aug 12, 2011 at 18:13 | vote | accept | SiberianGuy | ||
| Sep 28, 2011 at 18:05 | |||||
| Aug 12, 2011 at 0:40 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackProgrammer/status/101815174993940480 | ||
| S Aug 10, 2011 at 19:27 | history | suggested | Hugo |
Added a tag
|
|
| Aug 10, 2011 at 19:25 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 10, 2011 at 19:27 | |||||
| Aug 10, 2011 at 4:27 | comment | added | rwong | In case anybody misunderstands @Anthony, let me try to rephrase: TDD users should not have an unreasonable fear of "red". In the OP's case, it simply means the tests are out-of-sync with the current design. It may be less stressful if one teammate works on the design and another works on keeping the tests in sync. | |
| Aug 10, 2011 at 3:28 | answer | added | toby | timeline score: 3 | |
| Aug 10, 2011 at 0:27 | comment | added | bahith | This talk presented by Robert C. Martin will make you understand what TDD is all about: The Transformation Priority Premise | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 22:35 | comment | added | Winston Ewert | @Christopher, but sometimes the sequence is arbitrary and doesn't matter and its okay if it changes as a result of a refactor. This suggests to me that the OP is doing something wrong with how he tests. i.e. in cases where the sequence doesn't matter, don't test the sequence. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 22:23 | answer | added | Phil | timeline score: 33 | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 21:46 | answer | added | Steve Jackson | timeline score: 4 | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 20:59 | answer | added | Steven A. Lowe | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 20:18 | comment | added | Maggie | considering the amount of questions about TDD and (unit) testing, I think we'll soon need a Stack Exchange Testing dedicated site :D | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 20:11 | answer | added | Sean McMillan | timeline score: 6 | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 19:55 | comment | added | Anthony Pegram | Sounds like somebody doesn't want to deal with the reds. "Red, green, refactor, wait, why is it red? Screw this, TDD sucks." | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 19:45 | comment | added | Christopher Bibbs | @Idsa That is exactly the kind of thing I rely on tests to find because developers tell me "the result is the same". But then miss updating the sequence in one of the classes. The stubbed tests work, but the mocked ones alert me to missed work. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 19:25 | comment | added | SiberianGuy | @Christopher Bibbs, final result is the same - so I feel this test is false negative | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 19:20 | answer | added | Matthew Flynn | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 19:20 | comment | added | Christopher Bibbs | So you don't see it as a warning that refactoring has changed the required sequence of calls? | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 18:55 | answer | added | Winston Ewert | timeline score: 20 | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 18:53 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | That is a better way of putting it. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 18:51 | answer | added | Robert Harvey | timeline score: 10 | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 18:51 | comment | added | SiberianGuy | @Robert Harvey, if there are some well-known problems with this approach, it would be better for me to know them up-front, wouldn't it? | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 18:50 | comment | added | SiberianGuy | @Steve Jackson, I have added an update with clarification about what I mean under unit and integration tests | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 18:49 | answer | added | Aaron McIver | timeline score: 6 | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 18:49 | history | edited | SiberianGuy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 67 characters in body
|
| Aug 9, 2011 at 18:45 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | "Okay" is that which meets your requirements. "Make your code readable and clear" is "okay" until it becomes necessary to perform some obscure optimization to meet a performance requirement. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 18:43 | history | edited | SiberianGuy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 67 characters in body
|
| Aug 9, 2011 at 18:28 | history | asked | SiberianGuy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |