From: "Robert C. Martin" Date: 2001-12-22T05:54:33+09:00 Subject: [ruby-talk:29257] Re: John Roth dolt ( Re: A challenge to proponents of Unit Testing. ) On 21 Dec 2001 05:58:16 -0800, truediogen@my-deja.com (Vladimir) wrote: >Ron Jeffries wrote in message news:<0A32756ADADA363F.070372C414654C16.C0220F403DBE0589@lp.airnews.net>... >> On 17 Dec 2001 04:56:07 -0800, truediogen@my-deja.com (Vladimir) >> wrote: > >> Tthere's no water-walking involved. A little consideration and inquiry >> would have shown how it's done and why it works as well as it does. > >Oh stop that! No more 'it works coz it works, but I don't know why.' >Try to take on opposite position and look how "convincing" the >statements of that kind are... > >Any thoughts of why it's happening to work in the given case? The discussion is about test coverage. You are wondering why people are reporting near 100% coverage with XP. I have not measured it myself, so I cannot comment on whether the coverage is really 100% or not. However, I can imagine that coverage is very high. The reason that XP generates high test coverage is the XP rule that no production code can be written unless it is to make a failing test case pass. Add to this the extremely fine granularity with which XP recommends that tests and code be written. Any team that follows that rule, at the recommended granularity, is going to get very high test coverage. Robert C. Martin | "Uncle Bob" | Software Consultants Object Mentor Inc. | rmartin@objectmentor.com | We'll help you get PO Box 5757 | Tel: (800) 338-6716 | your projects done. 565 Lakeview Pkwy | Fax: (847) 573-1658 | www.objectmentor.com Suite 135 | | www.XProgramming.com Vernon Hills, IL, | Training and Mentoring | www.junit.org 60061 | OO, XP, Java, C++, Python| "One of the great commandments of science is: 'Mistrust arguments from authority.'" -- Carl Sagan