Search Results

Search found 544 results on 22 pages for 'tdd'.

Page 1/22 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Are "TDD Tests" different to Unit Tests?

    - by asgeo1
    I read this article about TDD and unit testing: http://stephenwalther.com/blog/archive/2009/04/11/tdd-tests-are-not-unit-tests.aspx I think it was an excellent article. The author makes a distinction between what he calls "TDD Tests" and unit testing. They appear to be different tests to him. Previous to reading this article I thought unit tests were a by-product of TDD. I didn't realise you might also create "TDD tests". The author seems to imply that creating unit tests is not enough for TDD as the granularity of a unit test is too small for what we are trying to achieve with TDD. So his TDD tests might test a few classes at once. At the end of the article there is some discussion from the author with some other people about whether there really is a distinction between "TDD Tests" and unit testing. Seems to be some contention around this idea. The example "TDD tests" the author showed at the end of the article just looked like normal MVC unit tests to me - perhaps "TDD tests" vs unit tests is just a matter of semantics? I would like to hear some more opinions on this, and whether there is / isn't a distinction between the two tests.

    Read the article

  • TDD/Tests too much an overhead/maintenance burden?

    - by MeshMan
    So you've heard it many times from those who do not truly understand the values of testing. Just to start things out, I'm a follower of Agile and Testing... I recently had a discussion about performing TDD on a product re-write where the current team does not practice unit testing on any level, and probably have never heard of the dependency injection technique or test patterns/design etc (we won't even get on to clean code). Now, I am fully responsible for the rewrite of this product and I'm told that attempting it in the fashion of TDD, will merely make it a maintenance nightmare and impossible for the team maintain. Furthermore, as it's a front-end application (not web-based), adding tests is pointless, as the business drive changes (by changes they mean improvements of course), the tests will become out of date, other developers who come on to the project in the future will not maintain them and become more of a burden for them to fix etc. I can understand that TDD in a team that does not currently hold any testing experience doesn't sound good, but my argument in this case is that I can teach my practice to those around me, but further more, I know that TDD makes BETTER software. Even if I was to produce the software using TDD, and throw all the tests away on handing it over to a maintenance team, it surely would be a better approach than not using TDD at all from the start? I've been shot down as I've mentioned doing TDD on most projects for a team that have never heard of it. The thought of "interfaces" and strange looking DI constructors scares them off... Can anyone please help me in what is normally a very short conversation of trying to sell TDD and my approach to people? I usually have a very short window of argument before falling at the knees to the company/team.

    Read the article

  • The dislikes of TDD

    - by andrewstopford
    I enjoy debates about TDD and Brian Harrys blog post is no exception. Brian sounds out what he likes and dislikes about TDD and it's the dislikes I'll focus on. The idea of having unit tests that cover virtually every line of code that I’ve written that I have to refactor every time I refactor my code makes me shudder.  Doing this way makes me take nearly twice as long as it would otherwise take and I don’t feel like I get sufficient benefits from it. Refactoring your tests to match your refactored code sounds like the tests are suffering. Too many hard dependencies with no SOLID concerns are a sure fire reason you would do this. Maybe at the start of a TDD cycle you would need to do this as your design evolves and you remove these dependencies but this should quickly be resolved as you refactor. If you find your self still doing it then stop and look back at your design. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of unit tests.  I just prefer to write them after the code has stopped shaking a bit.  In fact most of my early testing is “manual”.  Either I write a small UI on top of my service that allows me to plug in values and try it or write some quick API tests that I throw away as soon as I have validated them. The problem with this is that a UI can make assumptions on your code that then just unit test around and very quickly the design becomes bad and you technical debt sweeps in. If you want to blackbox test your code with a UI then do so after your TDD cycles not before. This is probably by biggest issue with a literal TDD interpretation.  TDD says you never write a line of code without a failing test to show you need it.  I find it leads developers down a dangerous path.  Without any help from a methodology, I have met way too many developers in my life that “back into a solution”.  By this, I mean they write something, it mostly works and they discover a new requirement so they tack it on, and another and another and when they are done, they’ve got a monstrosity of special cases each designed to handle one specific scenario.  There’s way more code than there should be and it’s way too complicated to understand. I believe in finding general solutions to problems from which all the special cases naturally derive rather than building a solution of special cases.  In my mind, to do this, you have to start by conceptualizing and coding the framework of the general algorithm.  For me, that’s a relatively monolithic exercise. TDD is an development pratice not a methodology, the danger is that the solution becomes a mass of different things that violate DRY. TDD won't solve these problems, only good communication and practices like pairing will help. Above all else an assumption that TDD replaces a methodology is a mistake, combine it with what ever works for your team\business but only good communication will help. A good naming scheme\structure for folders, files and tests can help you and your team isolate what tests are for what.

    Read the article

  • Your experiences with TDD [closed]

    - by SkonJeet
    In your experience, does TDD prove to be a useful approach in all development projects? Do you take the approach of TDD even when working on an existing project? Also, how does mocking tie in with a TDD discipline? I'm not looking for opinions, I'm looking for developers' advice, tips and learning resources regarding TDD's usage based on their experience. I'm going to spend the day equipping myself with enough knowledge about TDD to start making small steps towards using it but I don't know to what extent I should be using it.

    Read the article

  • Does TDD really work for complex projects?

    - by Amir Rezaei
    I’m asking this question regarding problems I have experienced during TDD projects. I have noticed the following challenges when creating unit tests. Generating and maintaining mock data It’s hard and unrealistic to maintain large mock data. It’s is even harder when database structure undergoes changes. Testing GUI Even with MVVM and ability to test GUI, it takes a lot of code to reproduce the GUI scenario. Testing the business I have experience that TDD works well if you limit it to simple business logic. However complex business logic is hard to test since the number of combinations of tests (test space) is very large. Contradiction in requirements In reality it’s hard to capture all requirements under analysis and design. Many times one note requirements lead to contradiction because the project is complex. The contradiction is found late under implementation phase. TDD requires that requirements are 100% correct. In such cases one could expect that conflicting requirements would be captured during creating of tests. But the problem is that this isn’t the case in complex scenarios. I have read this question: Why does TDD work? Does TDD really work for complex enterprise projects, or is it practically limit to project type?

    Read the article

  • TDD with limited resources

    - by bunglestink
    I work in a large company, but on a just two man team developing desktop LOB applications. I have been researching TDD for quite a while now, and although it is easy to realize its benefits for larger applications, I am having a hard time trying to justify the time to begin using TDD on the scale of our applications. I understand its advantages in automating testing, improving maintainability, etc., but on our scale, writing even basic unit tests for all of our components could easily double development time. Since we are already undermanned with extreme deadlines, I am not sure what direction to take. While other practices such as agile iterative development make perfect since, I am kind of torn over the productivity trade-offs of TDD on a small team. Are the advantages of TDD worth the extra development time on small teams with very tight schedules?

    Read the article

  • TDD - Outside In vs Inside Out

    - by Songo
    What is the difference between building an application Outside In vs building it Inside Out using TDD? These are the books I read about TDD and unit testing: Test Driven Development: By Example Test-Driven Development: A Practical Guide: A Practical Guide Real-World Solutions for Developing High-Quality PHP Frameworks and Applications Test-Driven Development in Microsoft .NET xUnit Test Patterns: Refactoring Test Code The Art of Unit Testing: With Examples in .Net Growing Object-Oriented Software, Guided by Tests---This one was really hard to understand since JAVA isn't my primary language :) Almost all of them explained TDD basics and unit testing in general, but with little mention of the different ways the application can be constructed. Another thing I noticed is that most of these books (if not all) ignore the design phase when writing the application. They focus more on writing the test cases quickly and letting the design emerge by itself. However, I came across a paragraph in xUnit Test Patterns that discussed the ways people approach TDD. There are 2 schools out there Outside In vs Inside Out. Sadly the book doesn't elaborate more on this point. I wish to know what is the main difference between these 2 cases. When should I use each one of them? To a TDD beginner which one is easier to grasp? What is the drawbacks of each method? Is there any materials out there that discuss this topic specifically?

    Read the article

  • How does TDD address interaction between objects?

    - by Gigi
    TDD proponents claim that it results in better design and decoupled objects. I can understand that writing tests first enforces the use of things like dependency injection, resulting in loosely coupled objects. However, TDD is based on unit tests - which test individual methods and not the integration between objects. And yet, TDD expects design to evolve from the tests themselves. So how can TDD possibly result in a better design at the integration (i.e. inter-object) level when the granularity it addresses is finer than that (individual methods)?

    Read the article

  • Getting from a user-story to code while using TDD (scrum)

    - by Ittai
    I'm getting into scrum and TDD and I think I have some confusion which I'd like to get your feedback about. Let's assume I have a user-story in my backlog, in order for me to start developing it as part of TDD I need to have requirements, right so far? Is it true to say that the product manager and the QA should be responsible for taking the user-story and breaking it down to acceptance tests? I think the above is true since the acceptance tests need to be formal, so they can be used as tests, but also human readable so that the product can approve they are the requirements, right? Is it also true that I later take these acceptance tests and use them as my requirements, i.e. they are a set of use-cases which I implement (through TDD)? I hope I'm not making too much of a mess but that's the current flow I have in mind right now. Update I think my initial intentions were unclear so I'll try to rephrase. I want to know more details about the scrum flow of turning a user-story into code while using TDD. The starting point is obvious, a user surfaces a need (or the user's representative as the product) which is a short 1-2 lines description in the known format and that is added to the product backlog. When there is a spring planning meeting user-stories are taken from the backlog and assigned to developers. In order for a developer to write code they need requirements (especially in TDD since the requirements are what the tests are derived from). When, by whom and to which format are the requirements compiled? What I had in mind was that the product and QA define the requirements via acceptance tests (I'm thinking of automatic using FitNesse or the sort but that's not the core I think) which help to serve 2 purposes at the same time: They define "Done" properly. They give a developer something to derive tests from. I wasn't sure when these were written (before the sprint they're picked then that might be a waste since additional information will arrive or the story won't be picked, during the iteration then the developer might get stuck waiting for them...)

    Read the article

  • Test Driven Development (TDD) in Visual Studio 2010- Microsoft Mondays

    - by Hosam Kamel
    November 14th , I will be presenting at Microsoft Mondays a session about Test Driven Development (TDD) in Visual Studio 2010 . Microsoft Mondays is program consisting of a series of Webcasts showcasing various Microsoft products and technologies. Each Monday we discuss a particular topic pertaining to development, infrastructure, Office tools, ERP, client/server operating systems etc. The webcast will be broadcast via Lync and can viewed from a web client. The idea behind the “Microsoft Mondays” program is to help you become more proficient in the products and technologies that you use and help you utilize their full potential.   Test Driven Development in Visual Studio 2010 Level – 300 (  Intermediate – Advanced ) Test Driven Development (TDD), also frequently referred to as Test Driven Design, is a development methodology where developers create software by first writing a unit test, then writing the actual system code to make the unit test pass.  The unit test can be viewed as a small specification around how the system should behave; writing it first helps the developer to focus on only writing enough code to make the test pass, thereby helping ensure a tight, lightweight system which is specifically focused meeting on the documented requirements. TDD follows a cadence of “Red, Green, Refactor.” Red refers to the visual display of a failing test – the test you write first will not pass because you have not yet written any code for it. Green refers to the step of writing just enough code in your system to make your unit test pass – your test runner’s UI will now show that test passing with a green icon. Refactor refers to the step of refactoring your code so it is tighter, cleaner, and more flexible. This cycle is repeated constantly throughout a TDD developer’s workday. Date:   November 14, 2011 Time:  10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. (GMT+3)  http://www.eventbrite.com/event/2437620990/efbnen?ebtv=F   See you there! Hosam Kamel Originally posted at

    Read the article

  • TDD and your emerging design

    - by andrewstopford
    I was at DevWeek last week, it was a great week and I got a chance to speak with some of my geek heroes (Jeff Richter is a walking, talking CLR). One of the folks I most enjoyed listening to was ThoughtWorker Neal Ford who gave a session on emergeant design in TDD. Something struck me about the RGR cycle in TDD in that design could either be missed or misplaced if the refactor phase is never carried out and after the inital green phase the design is considered done. In TDD the emergant design that evolves as part of the cycle is key to the approach.  Neal talked about using cyclometric complexity as a measure of your emerging design but other considerations would surely include SOLID and DRY during the cycles. As you refactor to these kinds of design principles your design evolves.

    Read the article

  • Does TDD lead to the good design?

    - by Eugen Martynov
    I'm in transition from "writing unit tests" state to TDD. I saw as Johannes Brodwall creates quite acceptable design from avoiding any of architecture phase before. I'll ask him soon if it was real improvisation or he had some thoughts upfront. I also clearly understand that everyone has experience that prevents to write explicit design bad patterns. But after participating in code retreat I hardly believe that writing test first could save us from mistakes. But I also believe that tests after code will lead to mistakes much faster. So this night question is asking for people who is using TDD for a long time share their experience about results of design without upfront thinking. If they really practice it and get mostly suitable design. Or it's my small understanding about TDD and probably agile.

    Read the article

  • Help me get started in TDD for web development

    - by Snow_Mac
    I've done a tiny, tiny bit of TDD in building an app for a company that I interned with. We used lots of mocking and wrote lots of assert statements, after reading lots of blogs, I'm convinced that TDD is the way to go, but how do you go about TDD web applications? My main framework is Yii in PHP. My main questions are: What do you test? Models? Controllers? Views? How do you know if the output is correct? All my web apps interact with a DB, are there cavets to that and gotchas? Can I do testing in Netbeans? Can you test form elements or just strictly objects & methods?

    Read the article

  • TDD - How to start really thinking TDD?

    - by user74825
    I have been reading about Agile, XP methodologies and TDDs. I have been in projects which states it needs to do TDD, but most of the tests are somehow integration tests or during the course of project TDD is forgotten in effort to finish codes faster. So, as far as my case goes, I have written unit tests, but I find myself going to start writing code first instead of writing a test. I feel there's a thought / design / paradigm change which is actually huge. So, though one really believes in TDD, you actually end up going back old style because of time pressure / project deliverables. I have few classes where I have pure unit tested code, but I can't seem to continue with the process, when mocks come into picture. Also, I see at times : "isn't it too trivial to write a test for it" syndrome. How do you guys think I should handle this?

    Read the article

  • TDD - what are the short term gains/benefits?

    - by ratkok
    Quite often benefits of using TDD are considered as 'long term' gains - the overall code will be better structured, more testable, overall less bugs reported by customers, etc. However, where are the short terms benefits of using TDD? Are there any which are actually tengible and easily measureable? Is it important to have an obvious (or even not obvious by quantifiable) short term benefit at all, if the long term gains are measurable?

    Read the article

  • TDD - what are the short term gains/benefits?

    - by ratkok
    Quite often benefits of using TDD are considered as 'long term' gains - the overall code will be better structured, more testable, overall less bugs reported by customers, etc. However, where are the short terms benefits of using TDD? Are there any which are actually tengible and easily measureable? Is it important to have an obvious (or even not obvious by quantifiable) short term benefit at all, if the long term gains are measurable?

    Read the article

  • Why is TDD not working here?

    - by TobiMcNamobi
    I want to write a class A that has a method calculate(<params>). That method should calculate a value using database data. So I wrote a class Test_A for unit testing (TDD). The database access is done using another class which I have mocked with a class, let's call it Accessor_Mockup. Now, the TDD cycle requires me to add a test that fails and make the simplest changes to A so that the test passes. So I add data to Accessor_Mockup and call A.calculate with appropriate parameters. But why should A use the accessor class at all? It would be simpler (!) if the class just "knows" the values it could retrieve from the database. For every test I write I could introduce such a new value (or an if-branch or whatever). But wait ... TDD is more. There is the refactoring part. But that sounds to me like "OK, I can do this all with a big if-elseif construct. I could refactor it using a new class ... but instead I make use of the DB accessor and do this in a totally different way. The code will not necessarily look better afterwards but I know I WANT to use the database".

    Read the article

  • TDD - A question about the approach

    - by k25
    I have a question about TDD. I have always seen the recommendation that we should first write unit tests and then start writing code. But I feel that going the other way is much more comfortable (for me) - write code and then the unit tests, because I feel we have much more clarity after we have written the actual code. If I write the code and then the tests, I may have to change my code a little bit to make it testable, even if I concentrate much on creating a testable design. On the other hand, if I write the tests and then the code, the tests will change pretty frequently as and when the code shapes up. My questions are: 1) As I see a lot of recommendations to start writing tests and then move on to coding, what are the disadvantages if I do it the other way - write code and then the unit tests? 2) Could you please point me to some links that discuss about this or recommend some books (TDD)?

    Read the article

  • How do I do TDD on embedded devices?

    - by Darth
    I'm not new to programming and I've even worked with some low level C and ASM on AVR, but I really can't get my head around a larger-scale embedded C project. Being degenerated by the Ruby's philosophy of TDD/BDD, I'm unable to understand how people write and test code like this. I'm not saying it's a bad code, I just don't understand how this can work. I wanted to get more into some low level programming, but I really have no idea how to approach this, since it looks like a completely different mindset that I'm used to. I don't have trouble understanding pointer arithmetics, or how allocating memory works, but when I see how complex C/C++ code looks compared to Ruby, it just seems impossibly hard. Since I already ordered myself an Arduino board, I'd love to get more into some low level C and really understand how to do things properly, but it seems like none of the rules of high level languages apply. Is it even possible to do TDD on embedded devices or when developing drivers or things like custom bootloader, etc.?

    Read the article

  • Relationship between TDD and Software Architecture/Design

    - by Christopher Francisco
    I'm new to TDD and have been reading the theory since applying it is more complicated than it sounds when you're learning by yourself. As far as I know, the objective is to write test cases for each requirement and run the test so it fails (to prevent a false positive). Afterward, you should write the minimum amount of code that can pass the test and move to the next one. That being said, is it true that you get a fast development, but what about the code itself? this theory makes me think you are not considering things like abstraction, delegation of responsibilities, design patterns, architecture and others since you're just writing "the minimum amount of code that can pass the test". I know I'm probably wrong because if this were true, we'd have a lot of crappy developers with poor software architecture and documentation so I'm asking for a guide here, what's the relationship between TDD and Software Architecture/Design?

    Read the article

  • TDD vs. Productivity

    - by Nairou
    In my current project (a game, in C++), I decided that I would use Test Driven Development 100% during development. In terms of code quality, this has been great. My code has never been so well designed or so bug-free. I don't cringe when viewing code I wrote a year ago at the start of the project, and I have gained a much better sense for how to structure things, not only to be more easily testable, but to be simpler to implement and use. However... it has been a year since I started the project. Granted, I can only work on it in my spare time, but TDD is still slowing me down considerably compared to what I'm used to. I read that the slower development speed gets better over time, and I definitely do think up tests a lot more easily than I used to, but I've been at it for a year now and I'm still working at a snail's pace. Each time I think about the next step that needs work, I have to stop every time and think about how I would write a test for it, to allow me to write the actual code. I'll sometimes get stuck for hours, knowing exactly what code I want to write, but not knowing how to break it down finely enough to fully cover it with tests. Other times, I'll quickly think up a dozen tests, and spend an hour writing tests to cover a tiny piece of real code that would have otherwise taken a few minutes to write. Or, after finishing the 50th test to cover a particular entity in the game and all aspects of it's creation and usage, I look at my to-do list and see the next entity to be coded, and cringe in horror at the thought of writing another 50 similar tests to get it implemented. It's gotten to the point that, looking over the progress of the last year, I'm considering abandoning TDD for the sake of "getting the damn project finished". However, giving up the code quality that came with it is not something I'm looking forward to. I'm afraid that if I stop writing tests, then I'll slip out of the habit of making the code so modular and testable. Am I perhaps doing something wrong to still be so slow at this? Are there alternatives that speed up productivity without completely losing the benefits? TAD? Less test coverage? How do other people survive TDD without killing all productivity and motivation?

    Read the article

  • TDD vs. Productivity

    - by Nairou
    In my current project (a game, in C++), I decided that I would use Test Driven Development 100% during development. In terms of code quality, this has been great. My code has never been so well designed or so bug-free. I don't cringe when viewing code I wrote a year ago at the start of the project, and I have gained a much better sense for how to structure things, not only to be more easily testable, but to be simpler to implement and use. However... it has been a year since I started the project. Granted, I can only work on it in my spare time, but TDD is still slowing me down considerably compared to what I'm used to. I read that the slower development speed gets better over time, and I definitely do think up tests a lot more easily than I used to, but I've been at it for a year now and I'm still working at a snail's pace. Each time I think about the next step that needs work, I have to stop every time and think about how I would write a test for it, to allow me to write the actual code. I'll sometimes get stuck for hours, knowing exactly what code I want to write, but not knowing how to break it down finely enough to fully cover it with tests. Other times, I'll quickly think up a dozen tests, and spend an hour writing tests to cover a tiny piece of real code that would have otherwise taken a few minutes to write. Or, after finishing the 50th test to cover a particular entity in the game and all aspects of it's creation and usage, I look at my to-do list and see the next entity to be coded, and cringe in horror at the thought of writing another 50 similar tests to get it implemented. It's gotten to the point that, looking over the progress of the last year, I'm considering abandoning TDD for the sake of "getting the damn project finished". However, giving up the code quality that came with it is not something I'm looking forward to. I'm afraid that if I stop writing tests, then I'll slip out of the habit of making the code so modular and testable. Am I perhaps doing something wrong to still be so slow at this? Are there alternatives that speed up productivity without completely losing the benefits? TAD? Less test coverage? How do other people survive TDD without killing all productivity and motivation?

    Read the article

  • How to write simple code using TDD [migrated]

    - by adeel41
    Me and my colleagues do a small TDD-Kata practice everyday for 30 minutes. For reference this is the link for the excercise http://osherove.com/tdd-kata-1/ The objective is to write better code using TDD. This is my code which I've written public class Calculator { public int Add( string numbers ) { const string commaSeparator = ","; int result = 0; if ( !String.IsNullOrEmpty( numbers ) ) result = numbers.Contains( commaSeparator ) ? AddMultipleNumbers( GetNumbers( commaSeparator, numbers ) ) : ConvertToNumber( numbers ); return result; } private int AddMultipleNumbers( IEnumerable getNumbers ) { return getNumbers.Sum(); } private IEnumerable GetNumbers( string separator, string numbers ) { var allNumbers = numbers .Replace( "\n", separator ) .Split( new string[] { separator }, StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries ); return allNumbers.Select( ConvertToNumber ); } private int ConvertToNumber( string number ) { return Convert.ToInt32( number ); } } and the tests for this class are [TestFixture] public class CalculatorTests { private int ArrangeAct( string numbers ) { var calculator = new Calculator(); return calculator.Add( numbers ); } [Test] public void Add_WhenEmptyString_Returns0() { Assert.AreEqual( 0, ArrangeAct( String.Empty ) ); } [Test] [Sequential] public void Add_When1Number_ReturnNumber( [Values( "1", "56" )] string number, [Values( 1, 56 )] int expected ) { Assert.AreEqual( expected, ArrangeAct( number ) ); } [Test] public void Add_When2Numbers_AddThem() { Assert.AreEqual( 3, ArrangeAct( "1,2" ) ); } [Test] public void Add_WhenMoreThan2Numbers_AddThemAll() { Assert.AreEqual( 6, ArrangeAct( "1,2,3" ) ); } [Test] public void Add_SeparatorIsNewLine_AddThem() { Assert.AreEqual( 6, ArrangeAct( @"1 2,3" ) ); } } Now I'll paste code which they have written public class StringCalculator { private const char Separator = ','; public int Add( string numbers ) { const int defaultValue = 0; if ( ShouldReturnDefaultValue( numbers ) ) return defaultValue; return ConvertNumbers( numbers ); } private int ConvertNumbers( string numbers ) { var numberParts = GetNumberParts( numbers ); return numberParts.Select( ConvertSingleNumber ).Sum(); } private string[] GetNumberParts( string numbers ) { return numbers.Split( Separator ); } private int ConvertSingleNumber( string numbers ) { return Convert.ToInt32( numbers ); } private bool ShouldReturnDefaultValue( string numbers ) { return String.IsNullOrEmpty( numbers ); } } and the tests [TestFixture] public class StringCalculatorTests { [Test] public void Add_EmptyString_Returns0() { ArrangeActAndAssert( String.Empty, 0 ); } [Test] [TestCase( "1", 1 )] [TestCase( "2", 2 )] public void Add_WithOneNumber_ReturnsThatNumber( string numberText, int expected ) { ArrangeActAndAssert( numberText, expected ); } [Test] [TestCase( "1,2", 3 )] [TestCase( "3,4", 7 )] public void Add_WithTwoNumbers_ReturnsSum( string numbers, int expected ) { ArrangeActAndAssert( numbers, expected ); } [Test] public void Add_WithThreeNumbers_ReturnsSum() { ArrangeActAndAssert( "1,2,3", 6 ); } private void ArrangeActAndAssert( string numbers, int expected ) { var calculator = new StringCalculator(); var result = calculator.Add( numbers ); Assert.AreEqual( expected, result ); } } Now the question is which one is better? My point here is that we do not need so many small methods initially because StringCalculator has no sub classes and secondly the code itself is so simple that we don't need to break it up too much that it gets confusing after having so many small methods. Their point is that code should read like english and also its better if they can break it up earlier than doing refactoring later and third when they will do refactoring it would be much easier to move these methods quite easily into separate classes. My point of view against is that we never made a decision that code is difficult to understand so why we are breaking it up so early. So I need a third person's opinion to understand which option is much better.

    Read the article

  • Why does TDD work?

    - by CesarGon
    Test-driven development (TDD) is big these days. I often see it recommended as a solution for a wide range of problems here in Programmers SE and other venues. I wonder why it works. From an engineering point of view, it puzzles me for two reasons: The "write test + refactor till pass" approach looks incredibly anti-engineering. If civil engineers used that approach for bridge construction, or car designers for their cars, for example, they would be reshaping their bridges or cars at very high cost, and the result would be a patched-up mess with no well thought-out architecture. The "refactor till pass" guideline is often taken as a mandate to forget architectural design and do whatever is necessary to comply with the test; in other words, the test, rather than the user, sets the requirement. In this situation, how can we guarantee good "ilities" in the outcomes, i.e. a final result that is not only correct but also extensible, robust, easy to use, reliable, safe, secure, etc.? This is what architecture usually does. Testing cannot guarantee that a system works; it can only show that it doesn't. In other words, testing may show you that a system contains defects if it fails a test, but a system that passes all tests is not safer than a system that fails them. Test coverage, test quality and other factors are crucial here. The false safe feelings that an "all green" outcomes produces to many people has been reported in civil and aerospace industries as extremely dangerous, because it may be interepreted as "the system is fine", when it really means "the system is as good as our testing strategy". Often, the testing strategy is not checked. Or, who tests the tests? I would like to see answers containing reasons why TDD in software engineering is a good practice, and why the issues that I have explained above are not relevant (or not relevant enough) in the case of software. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • How to get initial API right using TDD?

    - by Vytautas Mackonis
    This might be a rather silly question as I am at my first attempts at TDD. I loved the sense of confidence it brings and generally better structure of my code but when I started to apply it on something bigger than one-class toy examples, I ran into difficulties. Suppose, you are writing a library of sorts. You know what it has to do, you know a general way of how it is supposed to be implemented (architecture wise), but you keep "discovering" that you need to make changes to your public API as you code. Perhaps you need to transform this private method into strategy pattern (and now need to pass a mocked strategy in your tests), perhaps you misplaced a responsibility here and there and split an existing class. When you are improving upon existing code, TDD seems a really good fit, but when you are writing everything from scratch, the API you write tests for is a bit "blurry" unless you do a big design up front. What do you do when you already have 30 tests on the method that had its signature (and for that part, behavior) changed? That is a lot of tests to change once they add up.

    Read the article

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