From: Michael Campbell <michael_s_campbell@...>
Date: 2003-05-17T04:19:38+09:00
Subject: Re: Test::Unit sequencing

--- Austin Ziegler <austin@halostatue.ca> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2003 00:27:33 +0900, Michael Campbell wrote:
> > I know this is wrought with exceptions, but a very crude rule of
> > thumb is that if your code is not easily testable, it's probably
> > poorly designed, too tightly coupled, not cohesive enough, too
> > big, etc.; in other words, due for a re-think.
> 
> I would strongly disagree with this. There are some things that
> aren't really able to be broken into clean units for testing.

Hence my "wrought with exceptions" and "very crude" qualifiers.  At
least for what *I'm* working on, I find that if I can't test it, it's
probably worth a re-think.  Since I tend to write my tests before I
code (or at least *right after*), it's easier to change then.  When
you're working on legacy or pre-existing stuff, its a bit harder.

I find that YOUR characterization of my characterization not being
"safe" interesting; how would you find this dangerous?  While it may
not be true in all circumstances, even where it isn't true, I haven't
found it "unsafe" in any way.  Maybe more time consuming or
suboptimal, but never unsafe.




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com