About test presence
ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Fri Dec 19 19:18:26 UTC 2003
German got my point.
The idea is to have simple unit tests visible to push us to produce
On 19 déc. 03, at 19:03, German Morales wrote:
> I think two of your points are very similar, so I answer to them
>> First, it leads to test code that is too tightly coupled to production
>> code. The test code is structured according to the design of the
>> production code, and this makes refactoring difficult. The tests
>> reflect the requirements for the software rather than it's
>> implementation. For effective refactoring it's best to have stable
>> tests that allow the production code to be changed independently.
>> Finally, tight coupling between tests and production code makes tests
>> less effective as documentation. If you structure the test suite
>> concepts of related to the requirements of the software, it becomes
>> much easier to understand the software by reading the tests.
>> the requirements and implementation with separate models give you two
>> views of the problem and solution, as it were. By tightly coupling the
>> tests with the production code, you only provide one expression of the
>> information that needs to be conveyed.
> I think there are different levels of tests.
> As you say, there are tests that test "the requirements for the
> These tests, if I understand what you mean, see the application as a
> whole, as the user will see it.
> The problem I see with this high level tests is that you need a fully
> working (part of the) application to have those tests passing.
> While making those tests work, you incrementally build smaller parts
> you later join. Being test infected, you want to be sure that those
> smaller parts work perfectly, so you end up writing tests that are
> to the implementation.
> I don't think this low level tests are something bad by themselves. The
> problem would be having only this kind of tests and none of the other
> So I think is a matter of education, of learning how to write better
> (and i'm not saying that I have any truth on what's better).
> And talking about testing education, I think that's what was Stef was
> pointing to.
> Your comments are ok for a discussion about "how to write better
> But I suppose Stef is looking for weapons to win a more simple
> "to test or not to test".
> That's where BrowseUnit fits. It destroys the excuses of people trying
> avoid getting test infected.
> Have a nice day (and 2004, why not?),
> German Morales
More information about the Squeak-dev