From: Wilkes Joiner <boognish23@...>
Date: 2001-12-03T11:09:41+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:27307] Re: Quantitative Unit-testing? (Re: John Roth dolt (  Re: A challenge  to   proponents of Unit Testing. )

Just my 2 cents...

> I.e. how can we know nobody is
> violating the contract/specification expressed by my
> tests-code?
> >
> > Their tests run?
> 
> Not necessarily. If all their tests run, it does not
> mean these tests exercise my components in all the
> same ways as the 'real application' will.

Does documentation prevent someone from using your
component improperly?


> BTW. Are you saying that this is how we should
> interpret unit tests, as specifications of each
> individual component ?

It is certainly more concrete and less ambiguous than
documentation.  Especially when you consider that a
lot of programmers prefer writing code over writing
"interface contracts".  I have seen a few
"specifications" that time and lack of maintenance
have rendered not only obsolete but down right
dangerous to use.

> We do not know if *their* test-cases represent every
> way their component is used in the real application,

They almost certainly don't, but some tests are better
than no tests, and running code is better than a
document that says, "this is how it *should* run."

> and we don't know if their test-cases call my
> components at all. So I'd rather rely on 'my
> software being correct' than assuming that a) their
> test cases run and b) their test run all the code
> that is run in the production application.

OK, so how do you *know* that your software is
correct?  How do you know that you were able to do a
perfect translation of the specification into running
code?  How do you know that the person using your
component understood your specification perfectly?


I must be missing something.

- Wilkes Joiner


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
http://shopping.yahoo.com