开云体育

You know... now that I think about this more, I have a change of mind. A 700 ms test is perfectly fine... until we have 20 of them. Then it starts to become noticeable. If we need 20 of them, then

Test execution speed is only one negative effect of this overly-tight coupling. In the past, it provided practical motivation to split things apart; now that the speed difference has diminished, we

Hi, folks. I embarrassed myself in a Surviving Legacy Code training course recently by fumbling with Subclass to Test in front of a bunch of JavaScript programmers. It occurred to me that I don't know

All of it very interesting indeed! Wrt. integration tests -> I’ve recently split our IT suite into two so that we can easily run more of our ITs during build. Now we have: * “Integration Tests –

It's interesting to me. Today I wrote a test which was confirming the behavior of a queue to write to a DB with the correct changes. I starting by writing the test in our e2e folder, because I assumed

wrote: Yup. And since human nature is to let meanings wander but keep the words the same, if we want a self-regulating system, then we need some people to nudge us back in the direction of using words

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 12:11 PM Russell Gold <russ@...> wrote: > On Apr 29, 2022, at 10:22 AM, J. B. Rainsberger <me@...> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 8:04 PM Charlie Poole

Charlie After you've finished with slogans, would you care to tackle brand names? :-) - George -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- * George Dinwiddie *

Hi Jeff, Context as well as the fact that human beings are extraordinarily good at resolving ambiguity... at least when they choose to try. :-) Charlie

Hi Charlie-- Also particularly amusing: I describe what I do as a programmer as TDD, and what we do as a team to get on the same page to drive features as BDD. But you can swap the acronyms, too.

Joe, It's ALL jargon! In the first meaning (in most dictionaries I checked) of "language peculiar to a particular trade profession or group," rather than in the sense of something negative or not

That suggests that size matte

wrote: I didn't know that the term literally originated as referring to compilation units, but that makes immediate sense to me. Modernizing this meaning to "unit of inspection" (since we don't have

I don't think so. It describes a particular intent of the test: to check an inspectable unit, rather than limit oneself only to end-to-end tests or tests through the end-user interface. It merely

It's funny how long the terminology "unit tests" has hung on. Perhaps that's because of its vagueness. When I worked on IBM mainframes, a typical "unit" test covered a single unit of compilation,

Respectfully, this definition makes the term unit test worthless and replaceable with just "test" or at best "automated test". Differentiating between unit tests (tests that only test your code, not

Concur. Also, in XP, called Customer Tests. Ron Jeffries ronjeffries.com <http://ronjeffries.com/> I know we always like to say it'll be easier to do it now than it will be to do it later. Not likely.

Terminologically, I believe acceptance tests should be written by the customer or product owner (or at least directly derived from their acceptance criteria), whereas the other kinds of tests are

Based on this reaction, I clarified the situation in the article: we use the Saff Squeeze when we don't already know what caused the test to fail. Thank you for helping me see one of my unstated