Re^2: A danger of test driven development.

Whenever two pieces of code disagree, verify that the simpler one is correct (cause it's simpler to verify), then check the more complex one.

I did, and the test looked ok.

You shouldn't have to change code to pass tests

Really? You never change code? All the code you write is correct, always? You never make typos, swap arguments, popped instead of shifted? Lucky you, you don't need any tests!

It sounds like you wrote too much untested code at once.

No, I didn't. I did write enough chunks of code between test runs to actually have compilable, no non-sense code though.

Perl --((8:>*

Comment on Re^2: A danger of test driven development.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: A danger of test driven development.
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Oct 05, 2005 at 16:28 UTC

The point is that while you might have written tests before code, you wrote code that wasn't tested until you wrote the test for it. I think your idea of "no non-sense code" is unreasonable. About half the code I write between runs is what I think you would consider "non-sense" code. A lot of time, I will have code that I know is wrong because I haven't written the test that demonstrates its "wrong"-ness. Until I write the test that demonstrates what's wrong, forcing me to refactor, I don't refactor. Otherwise, I would have written code before that code's test, which means I'm not doing TDD anymore.

Now, I don't ship code in that state (though I do check it in). The test suite doesn't fully implement the spec, so the feature isn't done. But, you literally write the minimalist and simplest code that will work. Unoptimized, unvalidating code. Crappy CS101 code. You'll write the tests that expose the weaknesses, forcing the refactor to correct code. But, only with tests.

My criteria for good software:

Does it work?
Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?

[reply]


good chemistry is complicated, and a little bit messy -LW
	PerlMonks