From: Piers Cawley <pdcawley@...>
Date: 2001-12-11T18:01:26+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:28188] Re: John Roth dolt (  Re: A challenge to proponents of Unit Testing. )

Stefan Schmiedl <s@xss.de> writes:
> Universe (2001-12-11 15:22):
>> Robert C. Martin <rmartin @ objectmentor . com> wrote:
>> >That's correct.  Unit tests are white box tests.  They are fragile to
>> >significant changes of design.  
>> 
>> Why?  Why wouldn't unit testing only worry about robustly meeting
>> behavioral requirements.
>
> because that would leave implementation flaws undetected.
> with white-box unit tests you could ensure that third-party
> libraries show the same behaviour over releases. since the
> environment never sees them, 

If you write your unit tests before you write your code how can they
be 'white box'? After all, if the box doesn't exist...

-- 
Piers

   "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
    possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
         -- Jane Austen?