开云体育

[email protected]> wrote: What makes this "weak" for you? The signals can only say "Pay attention here!" I'm not sure they could ever say anything stronger than that. But then, the signals from test

wrote: Excellent! That's what we're here for. :) Got it.

[email protected]> wrote: This is perhaps one aspect of Evolutionary Design in general that I emphasize: it normalizes changing code; it helps reverse the belief that changing code is a failure of

Olof, I found that much of my design pressure came from the REEN "cat" state. After I made the test pass, I often noticed that the code that did so didn't communicate well. Often it was coupled with

I advocate postponing refactoring to any design pattern if related stories are still in the backlog, especially if they are slices of the same bigger story. The implementation of the later stories may

I have a couple of opinions/experiences I want to share on the topic of design pressure and TDD. TDD has three 'states' which I think of as animals or colors: BLUE/Owl: "add a test" (understand the

Promiscuous pairing and code reviews are remedies you can find in the literature that try to address this problem, If you find any deterministic rules for determining whether a design is good, I would

I find that the design signals that I get directly during refactoring are actually pretty weak. There are code smells, but these aren't the signals. The code smells are things that you or other people

Allow me to begin with a disclaimer: that the thoughts that follow are still in something of a draft phase, and may indeed lead nowhere useful when pursued to their logical end.? K? None that I know

Thanks for the scientific report on AI generation of unit test Mauricio - very interesting. David Koontz Email: david@... (360) 259-8380 http://about.me/davidakoontz

What interests me more is if the LLM can write code based on the tests I write, rather than generating tests for the code I write. brought to you by the letters A, V, and I and the number 47 wrote:

This paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.00418.pdf) shows that these models are still quite bad at writing good tests. Nevertheless, as an assistant, maybe they can help. We're about to start more

Here is my attempt at AI unit test creation... Well the quick story - it didn't write good tests - but it jump started my writing test for my calculator app I'm building in Swift. I feel that with

One thing that helped me with design by using TDD was how it encourages making constant changes to the code. It makes changes necessary because you haven't thought too far ahead, and it makes changes

This sounds like "Freedom from getting it right the first time". Is there more than that to this particular freedom for you? -- J. B. (Joe) Rainsberger :: tdd.training :: jbrains.ca

wrote: I find this pretty provocative, so of course, that interests me immediately. :) Two questions leap to mind: - What kind of "weak" is your "weak" here? - Which "survey literature" has drawn

I don't think I've ever encountered exactly this point before. To the extent that it's true, I find it useless. :) Even so, I appreciate its attempt to be precise and to highlight the potential for

kevin@...> wrote: I did it, so it must be possible. :) I'm not sure what seems surprising about the claim. What do you find surprising in it? -- J. B. (Joe) Rainsberger ::

This I think ropes you into being a collaborator on the update Mark. Welcome aboard! :-) <http://langrsoft.com> Jeff Langr/ +1-719-287-4335 http://langrsoft.com Pragmatic Unit Testing in Java

Thanks for the recommendation Josue! The book indeed is on long-EOL'd Java; it was written in 2004 and timed to coincide with the release of Java 1.5. I've had a number of folks request an update, but