Search Results

Search found 13748 results on 550 pages for 'split testing'.

Page 2/550 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• What is Robot Army Testing?

  - by joe

  What is Robot Army Testing? Where is it used? How can I learn it?

  Read the article

• Multiple Condition Coverage Testing

  - by David Relihan

  Hi Folks, When using the White Box method of testing called Multiple Condition Coverage, do we take all conditional statements or just the ones with multiple conditions? Now maybe the clues in the name but I'm not sure. So if I have the following method void someMethod() { if(a && b && (c || (d && e)) ) //Conditional A { } if(z && q) // Conditional B { } } Do I generate the truth table for just "Conditional A", or do I also do Conditional B? Thanks,

  Read the article

• Automate Testing on future only items business rules

  - by Titan

  I currently have a business object with a validation business rule, which is it can only be created for the future, tomorrow onwards, and I cannot create new items for today. I have a process, which runs the non-future business objects through some steps.. Because I have to set things up today, and test tomorrow, and when it fails, I can only create a new object tomorrow and test the following day. Are there any easy ways to automate this process in any testing frameworks? I think our testers are using the visual studio 2010 test manager. How do you guys manage situations like this? Cheers

  Read the article

• What is the objective of unit testing?

  - by user728750

  I've been working with C# for the last 2 years, and I've never done any unit testing. I just need to know what the objective of unit testing is. What kind of results do we expect from unit testing? Is code quality checked by unit testing? In my view, unit testing is the job of testers; if that is true, then as a developer why would I need to write test code if the tester does the unit testing? Why should I write extra code for testing? Do I need to maintain a separate copy of a project for unit testing?

  Read the article

• Link between tests and user stories

  - by Sardathrion

  I have not see these links explicitly stated in the Agile literature I have read. So, I was wondering if this approach was correct: Let a story be defined as "In order to [RESULT], [ROLE] needs to [ACTION]" then RESULT generates system tests. ROLE generates acceptance tests. ACTION generates component and unit tests. Where the definitions are the ones used in xUnit Patterns which to be fair are fairly standard. Is this a correct interpretation or did I misunderstand something?

  Read the article

• What is the difference between debugging and testing?

  - by persepolis

  Introduction To Software Testing (Ammann & Offutt) mentions on p.32 a 5-level testing maturity model: Level 0 There’s no difference between testing and debugging. Level 1 The purpose of testing is to show that the software works. Level 2 The purpose of testing is to show that the software doesn’t work. Level 3 The purpose of testing is not to prove anything specific, but to reduce the risk of using the software. Level 4 Testing is a mental discipline that helps all IT professionals develop higher quality software. Although they don't go into much further detail. What are the differences between debugging and testing?

  Read the article

• Java .split() Method To Split XML Parameters

  - by Buzz Lightyear

  I have this line from an XML document: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <svg xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" contentScriptType="text/ecmascript" width="1024" zoomAndPan="magnify" contentStyleType="text/css" viewBox="0 0 1024 768" height="768" preserveAspectRatio="xMidYMid meet" version="1.0"> I want to be able to split it up, using the split method. For example i want to save each parameter into a String array. So i'd like: contentScriptType="text/ecmascript" width="1024" zoomAndPan="magnify" contentStyleType="text/css" viewBox="0 0 1024 768" height="768" etc etc to be saved into a string array, is there anyway to do this using the split method, or can anybody suggest an easier, more efficient way to do this?

  Read the article

• Rails testing authlogic

  - by pepernik

  I just started using tests. I try to test the login like this require 'test_helper' class UserFlowsTest < ActionController::IntegrationTest fixtures :all # Replace this with your real tests. test "login and browse" do https! get "/users/new" assert_response :success post "/user_sessions", :email => '[email protected]', :password => 'aaaa' follow_redirect! assert_equal root_path, path end end I use authlogic gem in my rails app. What is wrong with this test? It breaks at 'follow_redirect!' saying it is not a redirection but login through a browser works. Thx!

  Read the article

• Any thoughts on A/B testing in Django based project?

  - by Maddy

  We just now started doing the A/B testing for our Django based project. Can I get some information on best practices or useful insights about this A/B testing. Ideally each new testing page will be differentiated with a single parameter(just like Gmail). mysite.com/?ui=2 should give a different page. So for every view I need to write a decorator to load different templates based on the 'ui' parameter value. And I dont want to hard code any template names in decorators. So how would urls.py url pattern will be?

  Read the article

• Functional testing in the verification

  - by user970696

  Yesterday my question How come verification does not include actual testing? created a lot of controversy, yet did not reveal the answer for related and very important question: does black box functional testing done by testers belong to verification or validation? ISO 12207:12208 here mentiones testing explicitly only as a validation activity, however, it speaks about validation of requirements of the intended use. For me its more high level, like UAT test cases written by business users ISO mentioned above does not mention any specific verification (7.2.4.3.2)except for Requirement verification, Design verification, Document and Code & Integration verification. The last two can be probably thought as unit and integrated testing. But where is then the regular testing done by testers at the end of the phase? The book I mentioned in the original question mentiones that verification is done by static techniques, yet on the V model graph it describes System testing against high level description as a verification, mentioning it includes all kinds of testing like functional, load etc. In the IEEE standard for V&V, you can read this: Even though the tests and evaluations are not part of the V&V processes, the techniques described in this standard may be useful in performing them. So that is different than in ISO, where validation mentiones testing as the activity. Not to mention a lot of contradicting information on the net. I would really appreciate a reference to e.g. a standard in the answer or explanation of what I missed in the ISO. For me, I am unable to tell where the testers work belong.

  Read the article

• Oracle Functional Testing Suite Advanced Pack for Oracle EBS Now Available

  - by Anne Carlson (Oracle Development)

  There’s new news about automated testing of E-Business Suite using the Oracle Application Testing Suite, a.k.a, “OATS”. E-Business Suite Development is pleased to announce the availability of the new Oracle Functional Testing Suite Advanced Pack for Oracle E-Business Suite. The new pack, available with the latest release of Oracle Application Testing Suite (12.4.0.2), provides pre-built test components and flows to automate the in-depth testing of Oracle E-Business Suite applications. Designed for use with the Oracle Application Testing Suite and its Oracle Flow Builder capability, these pre-built components and flows can help Oracle E-Business Suite customers to significantly reduce the time and effort needed to create and maintain automated test scripts. The Oracle Functional Testing Suite Advanced Pack for Oracle E-Business Suite is available now for EBS 12.1.3, and availability for EBS 12.2 is planned. Some Background on Automating Testing with Oracle Application Testing Suite and Oracle Flow Builder      Testing complex packaged applications like Oracle E-Business Suite can be time-consuming and challenging for organizations, hampering their ability to upgrade to latest releases or apply latest patches. Oracle Application Testing Suite offers organizations a unique and powerful testing platform for Oracle E-Business Suite and other Oracle applications. With the 12.3.0.1 release of Oracle Application Testing Suite, we introduced the Oracle Flow Builder testing framework and accompanying starter pack of pre-built test components and flows. The starter pack, which contains over 2000 components and 200 flows, provides broad coverage of commonly-used base functionality and is designed to jump-start the test automation effort. Using Oracle Flow Builder, even non-technical testers can create working test scripts using the pre-built components that Oracle provides. Each component represents an atomic test operation such as “create an invoice batch” or “apply an invoice hold.” Testers can assemble the pre-built components into test flows, and combine test flows with spreadsheet data to drive the testing of multiple data conditions. The Oracle Flow Builder framework allows customers to add, modify and extend the pre-built components to address new functionality and customizations of the Oracle E-Business Suite. Using Oracle Flow Builder’s component-based test generation framework instead of a traditional record/playback approach has allowed the EBS Quality Assurance team to reduce their test automation effort by 60%. E-Business Suite customers can significantly reduce their test automation effort using Oracle Application Testing Suite with Oracle Flow Builder and the pre-built test components and flows that Oracle provides. Oracle Functional Testing Suite Advanced Pack for Oracle E-Business Suite Improves Test Coverage With the Oracle Application Testing Suite 12.4.0.2 and the new Oracle Functional Testing Suite Advanced Pack for Oracle E-Business Suite, we are now delivering a significant number of additional test components and flows beyond those contained in the Oracle Flow Builder starter pack. These additional test components and flows provide 70-80% test coverage and enable the automation of detailed and complex test flows across the following Oracle E-Business Suite products: Oracle Asset Lifecycle Management Oracle Channel Revenue Management Oracle Discrete Manufacturing Oracle Incentive Compensation Oracle Lease and Finance Management Oracle Process Manufacturing Oracle Procurement Oracle Project Management Oracle Property Manager Oracle Service Downloads You can download the Oracle Functional Testing Suite Advanced Pack for Oracle E-Business Suite from the Oracle Technology Network. References Oracle Applications Testing Suite YouTube: Oracle Flow Builder Training YouTube: Oracle Applications Testing Suite and Flow Builder Demonstration Oracle Functional Testing Suite Advanced Pack Readme for E-Business Suite, id=1905989.1">Note 1905989.1 Related Articles Automate Testing Using Oracle Application Testing Suite with Flow Builder for E-Business Suite EBS 12.1.1 Test Starter Kit Now Available for Oracle Applications Testing Suite Oracle Application Testing Suite 9.0 Supported with Oracle E-Business Suite Using the Oracle Application Testing Suite with EBS: Interim Update #1

  Read the article

• Inspection, code review - is it really testing?

  - by user970696

  ISTQB, Wikipedia or other sources classify verification acitivities (reviews etc.) as a static testing, yet other do not. If we can say that peer reviews and inspections are actually a kind of a testing, then a lot of standards do not make sense (consider e.g. ISO which say that validation is done by testing, while verification by checking of work products) - it should at least say dynamic testing for validation, shouldn't it? I am completing master thesis dealing with QA and I must admit that I have never seen worse and more ambiguous and contradicting literature than in this field :/ Do you think (and if so, why) that static testing is a good and justifiable term or should we stick to testing and static checks/analysis?

  Read the article

• What are best practices for testing programs with stochastic behavior?

  - by John Doucette

  Doing R&D work, I often find myself writing programs that have some large degree of randomness in their behavior. For example, when I work in Genetic Programming, I often write programs that generate and execute arbitrary random source code. A problem with testing such code is that bugs are often intermittent and can be very hard to reproduce. This goes beyond just setting a random seed to the same value and starting execution over. For instance, code might read a message from the kernal ring buffer, and then make conditional jumps on the message contents. Naturally, the ring buffer's state will have changed when one later attempts to reproduce the issue. Even though this behavior is a feature it can trigger other code in unexpected ways, and thus often reveals bugs that unit tests (or human testers) don't find. Are there established best practices for testing systems of this sort? If so, some references would be very helpful. If not, any other suggestions are welcome!

  Read the article

• introducing automated testing without steep learning curve

  - by esther h

  We're a group of 4 developers on a ajax/mysql/php web application. 2 of us end up focusing most of our efforts on testing the application, as it is time-consuming, instead of actually coding. When I say testing, I mean opening screens and testing links, making sure nothing is broken and the data is correct. I understand there are test frameworks out there which can automate this kind of testing for you, but I am not familiar with any of them (neither is anyone on the team), or the fancy jargon (is it test-driven? behavior-driven? acceptance testing?) So, we're looking to slowly incorporate automated testing. We're all programmers, so it doesn't have to be super-simple. But we don't want something that will take a week to learn... And it has to match our php/ajax platform... What do you recommend?

  Read the article

• Testing Article for testing

  This is testing Article

  Read the article

• Agile Testing Days 2012 – Day 2 – Learn through disagreement

  - by Chris George

  I think I was in the right place! During Day 1 I kept on reading tweets about Lean Coffee that has happened earlier that morning. It intrigued me and I figured in for a penny in for a pound, and set my alarm for 6:45am. Following the award night the night before, it was _really_ hard getting up when it went off, but I did and after a very early breakfast, set off for the 10 min walk to the Dorint. With Lean Coffee due to start at 07:30, I arrived at the hotel and made my way to one of the hotel bars. I soon realised I was in the right place as although the bar was empty, there was a table with post-it’s and pens! This MUST be the place! The premise of Lean Coffee is to have several small timeboxed discussions. Everyone writes down what they would like to discuss on post-its that are then briefly explained and submitted to the pile. Once everyone is done, the group dot-votes on the topics. The topics are then sorted by the dot vote counts and the discussions begin. Each discussion had 8 mins to start with, which meant it prevented the discussions getting off topic too much. After the time elapsed, the group had a vote whether to extend the discussion by a further 4 mins or move on. Several discussion were had around training, soft skills etc. The conversations were really interesting and there were quite a few good ideas. Overall it was a very enjoyable experience, certainly worth the early start! Make Melly Happy Following Lean Coffee was real coffee, and much needed that was! The first keynote of the day was “Let’s help Melly (Changing Work into Life)”by Jurgen Appelo. Draw lines to track happiness This was a very interesting presentation, and set the day nicely. The theme to the keynote was projects are about the people, more-so than the actual tasks. So he started by showing a photo of an employee ‘Melly’ who looked happy enough. He then stated that she looked happy but actually hated her job. In fact 50% of Americans hate their jobs. He went on to say that the world over 50% of people hate Americans their jobs. Jurgen talked about many ways to reduce the feedback cycle, not only of the project, but of the people management. Ideas such as Happiness doors, happiness tracking (drawing lines on a wall indicating your happiness for that day), kudo boxes (to compliment a colleague for good work). All of these (and more) ideas stimulate conversation amongst the team, lead to early detection of issues and investigation of solutions. I’ve massively simplified Jurgen’s keynote and have certainly not done it justice, so I will post a link to the video once it’s available. Following more coffee, the next talk was “How releasing faster changes testing” by Alexander Schwartz. This is a topic very close to our hearts at the moment, so I was eager to find out any juicy morsels that could help us achieve more frequent releases, and Alex did not disappoint. He started off by confirming something that I have been a firm believer in for a number of years now; adding more people can do more harm than good when trying to release. This is for a number of reasons, but just adding new people to a team at such a critical time can be more of a drain on resources than they add. The alternative is to have the whole team have shared responsibility for faster delivery. So the whole team is responsible for quality and testing. Obviously you will have the test engineers on the project who have the specialist skills, but there is no reason that the entire team cannot do exploratory testing on the product. This links nicely with the Developer Exploratory testing presented by Sigge on Day 1, and certainly something that my team are really striving towards. Focus on cycle time, so what can be done to reduce the time between dev cycles, release cycles. What’s stops a release, what delays a release? all good solid questions that can be answered. Alex suggested that perhaps the product doesn’t need to be fully tested. Doing less testing will reduce the cycle time therefore get the release out faster. He suggested a risk-based approach to planning what testing needs to happen. Reducing testing could have an impact on revenue if it causes harm to customers, so test the ‘right stuff’! Determine a set of tests that are ‘face saving’ or ‘smoke’ tests. These tests cover the core functionality of the product and aim to prevent major embarrassment if these areas were to fail! Amongst many other very good points, Alex suggested that a good approach would be to release after every new feature is added. So do a bit of work -> release, do some more work -> release. By releasing small increments of work, the impact on the customer of bugs being introduced is reduced. Red Pill, Blue Pill The second keynote of the day was “Adaptation and improvisation – but your weakness is not your technique” by Markus Gartner and proved to be another very good presentation. It started off quoting lines from the Matrix which relate to adapting, improvising, realisation and mastery. It has alot of nerds in the room smiling! Markus went on to explain how through deliberate practice ( and a lot of it!) you can achieve mastery, but then you never stop learning. Through methods such as code retreats, testing dojos, workshops you can continually improve and learn. The code retreat idea was one that interested me. It involved pairing to write an automated test for, say, 45 mins, they deleting all the code, finding a different partner and writing the same test again! This is another keynote where the video will speak louder than anything I can write here! Markus did elaborate on something that Lisa and Janet had touched on yesterday whilst busting the myth that “Testers Must Code”. Whilst it is true that to be a tester, you don’t need to code, it is becoming more common that there is this crossover happening where more testers are coding and more programmers are testing. Markus made a special distinction between programmers and developers as testers develop tests code so this helped to make that clear. “Extending Continuous Integration and TDD with Continuous Testing” by Jason Ayers was my next talk after lunch. We already do CI and a bit of TDD on my project team so I was interested to see what this continuous testing thing was all about and whether it would actually work for us. At the start of the presentation I was of the opinion that it just would not work for us because our tests are too slow, and that would be the case for many people. Jason started off by setting the scene and saying that those doing TDD spend between 10-15% of their time waiting for tests to run. This can be reduced by testing less often, reducing the test time but this then increases the risk of introduced bugs not being spotted quickly. Therefore, in comes Continuous Testing (CT). CT systems run your unit tests whenever you save some code and runs them in the background so you can continue working. This is a really nice idea, but to do this, your tests must be fast, independent and reliable. The latter two should be the case anyway, and the first is ideal, but hard! Jason makes several suggestions to make tests fast. Firstly keep the scope of the test small, secondly spin off any expensive tests into a suite which is run, perhaps, overnight or outside of the CT system at any rate. So this started to change my mind, perhaps we could re-engineer our tests, and continuously run the quick ones to give an element of coverage. This talk was very interesting and I’ve already tried a couple of the tools mentioned on our product (Mighty Moose and NCrunch). Sadly due to the way our solution is built, it currently doesn’t work, but we will look at whether we can make this work because this has the potential to be a mini-game-changer for us. Using the wrong data Gojko’s Hierarchy of Quality The final keynote of the day was “Reinventing software quality” by Gojko Adzic. He opened the talk with the statement “We’ve got quality wrong because we are using the wrong data”! Gojko then went on to explain that we should judge a bug by whether the customer cares about it, not by whether we think it’s important. Why spend time fixing issues that the customer just wouldn’t care about and releasing months later because of this? Surely it’s better to release now and get customer feedback? This was another reference to the idea of how it’s better to build the right thing wrong than the wrong thing right. Get feedback early to make sure you’re making the right thing. Gojko then showed something which was very analogous to Maslow’s heirachy of needs. Successful – does it contribute to the business? Useful – does it do what the user wants Usable – does it do what it’s supposed to without breaking Performant/Secure – is it secure/is the performance acceptable Deployable Functionally ok – can it be deployed without breaking? He then explained that User Stories should focus on change. In other words they should focus on the users needs, not the users process. Describe what the change will be, how that change will happen then measure it! Networking and Beer Following the day’s closing keynote, there were drinks and nibble for the ‘Networking’ evening. This was a great opportunity to talk to people. I find approaching strangers very uncomfortable but once again, when in Rome! Pete Walen and I had a long conversation about only fixing issues that the customer cares about versus fixing issues that make you proud of your software! Without saying much, and asking the right questions, Pete made me re-evaluate my thoughts on the matter. Clever, very clever!  Oh and he ‘bought’ me a beer! My Takeaway Triple from Day 2: release small and release often to minimize issues creeping in and get faster feedback from ‘the real world’ Focus on issues that the customers care about, not what we think is important It’s okay to disagree with someone, even if they are well respected agile testing gurus, that’s how discussion and learning happens!  

  Read the article

• Point to Taken Care while Microsoft SQL Patching Testing in Production

  - by AbhishekLohani

  Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/AbhishekLohani/archive/2013/10/29/point-to-taken-care-while-sql-patching-testing--in.aspx Point to Taken Care while Microsoft SQL Patching Testing in Production It very critical testing like Paching testing  1. Build the Test Environment Parrel to Production Environment i.e Staging Environment2 Check the Version of Application deployed is same as Production Environment if Staging Environment not parrel to production environment then risk of defect in production 3.Check End to End Flow of Appliction 4 Check the Eventlog entries 5 Check the performance of the Application . Thanks & RegardsAbhishek

  Read the article

• Software or testing pipeline for testing multiple hard drives

  - by lions_leash

  I have a whole bunch of hard drives (maybe 10 or so) from a variety of sources that I'd like to test. If they work, I will put them in use and/or give them away. I was going to simply open up one of my machines and plug each one in, one at a time, and troubleshoot from there. Is there a way (or set of tools) that I can use to make this process easier and/or faster?

  Read the article

• Testing tools for Django Project

  - by Bharath

  Can anyone please suggest me some good testing tools for a django project? I need to test the different use case scenarios, unit testing, as well as load testing for my project. Is there any good standard testing suite available?? Any other suggestion(s) for the testing process is greatly appreciated. I use Django, postgresql on Ubuntu server if this information is necessary.

  Read the article

• Unit testing newbie team needs to unit test

  - by Walter

  I'm working with a new team that has historically not done ANY unit testing. My goal is for the team to eventually employ TDD (Test Driven Development) as their natural process. But since TDD is such a radical mind shift for a non-unit testing team I thought I would just start off with writing unit tests after coding. Has anyone been in a similar situation? What's an effective way to get a team to be comfortable with TDD when they've not done any unit testing? Does it make sense to do this in a couple of steps? Or should we dive right in and face all the growing pains at once?? EDIT Just for clarification, there is no one on the team (other than myself) who has ANY unit testing exposure/experience. And we are planning on using the unit testing functionality built into Visual Studio.

  Read the article

• Should I demand unit-testing from programmers?

  - by Morten

  I work at a place, where we buy a lot of IT-projects. We are currently producing a standard for systems-requirements for the requisition of future projects. In that process, We are discussing whether or not we can demand automated unit testing from our suppliers. I firmly believe, that proper automated unit-testing is the only way to document the quality and stability of the code. Everyone else seems to think that unit-testing is an optional method that concerns the supplier alone. Thus, we will make no demands of automated unit-testing, continous testing, coverage-reports, inspections of unit-tests or any of the kind. I find this policy extremely frustrating. Am I totally out of line here? Please provide me with arguments for any of the oppinions.

  Read the article

• Unit testing - getting started

  - by higgenkreuz

  I am just getting started with unit testing but I am not sure if I really understand the point of it all. I read tutorials and books on it all, but I just have two quick questions: I thought the purpose of unit testing is to test code we actually wrote. However, to me it seems that in order to just be able to run the test, we have to alter the original code, at which point we are not really testing the code we wrote but rather the code we wrote for testing. Most of our codes rely on external sources. Upon refactoring our code however, even it would break the original code, our tests still would run just fine, since the external sources are just muck-ups inside our test cases. Doesn't it defeat the purpose of unit testing? Sorry if I sound dumb here, but I thought someone could enlighten me a bit. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Do you enjoy 'Unit testing' ? [closed]

  - by jibin

  Possible Duplicate: How have you made unit testing more enjoyable ? i mean we all are developers & we love coding.I love learning new stuff(languages, frameworks, even new domains like mobile/Tablet development). But Testing ? As a newbie to the corporate environment,I just can't digest it.(We follow 'write-then-manually-test pattern').is it unit testing ?.Usually a single developer handles a module(From design to code & unit testing).So is it practical ? Somebody tell me how to make unit testing fun ? Or just How to do it properly?Do we try all possibilities manually.Say unit test for a webpage with lot of 'javascript validations'. PS:projects are all web applications.

  Read the article

• unit level testing, agile, and refactoring

  - by dsollen

  I'm working on a very agile development system, a small number of people with my doing the vast majority of progaming myself. I've gotten to the testing phase and find myself writing mostly functional level testing, which I should in theory be leavning for our tester (in practice I don't entirely...trust our tester to detect and identify defects enough to leave him the sole writter of functional tests). In theory what I should be writing is Unit level tests. However, I'm not sure it's worth the expense. Unit testing takes some time to do, more then functional testing since I have to set up mocks and plugs into smaller units that weren't design to run in issolation. More importantly, I find I refactor and redesign heavily-part of this is due to my inherriting code that needed heavy redesign and is still being cleaned up, but even once I've finished removing parts that need work I'm sure in the act of expanding the code I'll still do a decent amount of refactoring and redesign. It feels as if I will break my unit tests, forcing wasted time to refactor them as well, often due to unit test, by definition, having to be coupled so closely to the code structure. So.is it worth all the wasted time when functional tests, that will never break when I refactor/redesign, should find most defects? Do unit tests really provide that much extra defect detetection over through functional? and how does one create good unit tests that work with very quick and agile code that is modified rapidly? ps, I would be fine/happy with links to anything one considers an excellent resource for how to 'do' unit testing in a highly changing enviroment. edit: to clarify I am doing a bit of very unoffical TDD, I just seem to be writing tests on what would be considered a functional level rather then unit level. I think part of this is becaus I own nearly all of the project I don't feel I need to limit the scope as much; and part of it is that it's daunting to think of trying to go back and retroactively add the unit tests needed to cover enough code that I can feel comfortable testing only a unit without the full functionality and trust that unit still works with the rest of the units.

  Read the article

• What kind of code would Kent Beck avoid unit testing?

  - by tieTYT

  I've been watching a few of the Is TDD Dead? talks on youtube, and one of the things that surprised me is Kent Beck seems to acknowledge that there are just some kinds of programs that aren't worth unit testing. For example, right here DHH says that Kent Beck is ... very happy to say "Well, TDD doesn't fit in this case, I'm just going to bail" It's frustrating to me that Kent Beck seems to acknowledge this, but nobody asks him to elaborate on it or give concrete examples. I'd like to know the situations where Kent Beck thinks TDD is a bad fit. Nobody can read his mind or speak for him, but I'm hoping he's been transparent enough through his books/tweets/whatever for someone to be able to answer. I'm not necessarily going to take what he says as gospel, but it would be useful to know that the times I've tried TDD and it just felt impossible/useless are situations that he would have bailed on it himself. Or, if it turned out he would have tested that code it'd suggest to me that I was approaching the process very wrong. I also think it would be enlightening to understand why he would bail on such projects. My opinion on why this is not a duplicate of "When is it appropriate to not unit test?" After skimming those answers I'm not satisfied. For example, look at UncleBob's answer. He doesn't even acknowledge that such a situation exists. I really think there's value in understanding Kent Beck's position, not just a general, "What's your opinion?" type of question. After all, he's the father of TDD.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >