... [snip] Me neither. I only move to test doubles when I encounter testing pain. I don't do it as a matter of course. I do have an issue with the dependency...
On 1 Jun 2007, at 03:08, Desilets, Alain wrote: [snip] ... [snip] In the Perl world you might find Perl::Critic and Test::Perl::Critic of interest. Adrian...
... Some level of test isolation is inevitable if you're doing a top-down approach, and I believe that top-down is always valuable. Start with the UI and work...
... first, to ... That's an interesting choice, and I must say it's a bit surprising. You say it's context-specific, and maybe that's where we're missing each...
heusser and Seyit, When you say the level of test isolation is variable, or that test isolation is not necessary at all or only on a case-by-case basis, I ...
... I think code reviews are a good practice anyway. But they're not a 100% substitute for good testing practices. "Other testing" - manual testing, full...
On 1 Jun 2007, at 12:55, Dave Nicolette wrote: [snip] ... [snip] Absolutely. I'm not arguing against automated tests! TDD all the way for me :-) I'm just...
... Logical proofs are for academicians. XP isn't an academic matter. The practices we talk about here come from the trenches. When something works, we keep...
... much as possible and I can't say that I have found it to be a problem for debugging purposes. If I change two lines of code in some class and my tests turn...
... I find that I can build most software just fine without doubles. I wonder what we're doing differently. Ron Jeffries www.XProgramming.com Talent determines...
... Hum... I usually don't see a single argument to a single method is a sign that there is not enough separation of concern. It's certainly not a reason to...
... Yes, that is exactly my context. ... Right. I can see that in situations like this, test isolation would be a good thing. Thx for pointing this out....
... Most of us software people are not very good at marketing ourselves. It is generally impractical for us to continuously sell ourselves to the next...
If your partner is a stinky one, you're not Pair Programming. Oleg Puzanov IKEEN Group ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]...
Oleg Puzanov
puzanov@...
Jun 1, 2007 4:22 pm
129889
"I believe that top-down is always valuable" I agree. "Start with the UI and work down" . generally, I agree. although if in a WinForm, I'd start with the...
How many out there do code reviews (of some form) regularly? I tend to think you don't need them as much if you pair and if you switch pairs regularly...
... I never do them. I figure pair programming and collective ownership provide plenty of oppurtunity for impromptu code reviews. Speaking of code reviews. ...
I used to be a vehement supporter of code reviews, but lately all they produce for us is arguments about which coding spec is the correct coding spec... ...
... I have no idea what research is being cited, but it is almost certainly referring to testing after, not test first. As I'm sure you know, TDD is about...
... Interesting, since in your context, you don't pair much and the three of you work on your own projects most of the time. But then, it's only research for...
I can't give you the refs, but there is a substantial body of research that demonstrates that rigorous, formal code inspections are _cheaper_ than testing for...
... Easy: These (Java) mock object frameworks do *NOT* work with the real object at all: They generate, at run time, alternate implementations for the real...
Alain, ... I "live" collective code ownership by skimming through the changes when I update my working copy. This is by no means a real code review, but...
