[#83328] tcltklib and not init'ing tk — aakhter@... (Aamer Akhter)

Hello,

13 messages 2003/10/01

[#83391] mixing in class methods — "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...>

Okay, probably a dumb question, but: is there any way to define

22 messages 2003/10/01
[#83392] Re: mixing in class methods — Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...> 2003/10/01

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 06:02:32 +0900

[#83397] Re: mixing in class methods — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...> 2003/10/01

On Thursday, October 2, 2003, 7:08:00 AM, Ryan wrote:

[#83399] Re: mixing in class methods — "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...> 2003/10/02

On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 07:37:25AM +0900, Gavin Sinclair wrote:

[#83404] Re: mixing in class methods — "Gavin Sinclair" <gsinclair@...> 2003/10/02

> On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 07:37:25AM +0900, Gavin Sinclair wrote:

[#83416] C or C++? — "Joe Cheng" <code@...>

I'd like to start writing Ruby extensions. Does it make a difference

32 messages 2003/10/02
[#83435] Re: C or C++? — "Aleksei Guzev" <aleksei.guzev@...> 2003/10/02

[#83448] xml in Ruby — paul vudmaska <paul_vudmaska@...> 2003/10/02

The biggest problem i have with Ruby is the sleepness

[#83455] Re: xml in Ruby — Chad Fowler <chad@...> 2003/10/02

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, paul vudmaska wrote:

[#83464] Re: xml in Ruby or no xml it's just a question — paul vudmaska <paul_vudmaska@...> 2003/10/02

>>--------

[#83470] Re: xml in Ruby — paul vudmaska <paul_vudmaska@...>

>>>

15 messages 2003/10/02

[#83551] xml + ruby — paul vudmaska <paul_vudmaska@...>

>>---------

20 messages 2003/10/03
[#83562] Re: xml + ruby — Austin Ziegler <austin@...> 2003/10/03

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:11:46 +0900, paul vudmaska wrote:

[#83554] hash of hashes — Paul Argentoff <argentoff@...>

Hi all.

18 messages 2003/10/03

[#83675] fox-tool - interactive gui builder for fxruby — henon <user@...>

hi fellows,

15 messages 2003/10/05

[#83730] Re: Enumerable#inject is surprising me... — "Weirich, James" <James.Weirich@...>

> Does it surprise you?

17 messages 2003/10/06
[#83732] Re: Enumerable#inject is surprising me... — nobu.nokada@... 2003/10/07

Hi,

[#83801] Extension Language for a Text Editor — Nikolai Weibull <ruby-talk@...>

OK. So I'm going to write a text editor for my masters' thesis. The

35 messages 2003/10/08
[#83803] Re: Extension Language for a Text Editor — Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...> 2003/10/08

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 05:06:32 +0900

[#83806] Re: Extension Language for a Text Editor — Nikolai Weibull <ruby-talk@...> 2003/10/08

* Ryan Pavlik <rpav@mephle.com> [Oct, 08 2003 22:30]:

[#83812] Re: Extension Language for a Text Editor — Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...> 2003/10/08

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 06:09:29 +0900

[#83955] Re: Extension Language for a Text Editor — Nikolai Weibull <ruby-talk@...> 2003/10/09

* Ryan Pavlik <rpav@mephle.com> [Oct, 09 2003 09:10]:

[#84169] General Ruby Programming questions — Simon Kitching <simon@...>

21 messages 2003/10/15
[#84170] Re: General Ruby Programming questions — Florian Gross <flgr@...> 2003/10/15

Simon Kitching wrote:

[#84172] Re: General Ruby Programming questions — Simon Kitching <simon@...> 2003/10/15

Hi Florian..

[#84331] Re: Email Harvesting — Greg Vaughn <gvaughn@...>

Ryan Dlugosz said:

17 messages 2003/10/21
[#84335] Re: Email Harvesting — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...> 2003/10/21

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Greg Vaughn wrote:

[#84343] Re: Email Harvesting — Ruben Vandeginste <Ruben.Vandeginste@...> 2003/10/22

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:35:32 +0900, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng

[#84341] Ruby-oriented Linux distro? — Hal Fulton <hal9000@...>

There's been some talk of something like this in the past.

15 messages 2003/10/22
[#84348] Re: Ruby-oriented Linux distro? — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...> 2003/10/22

On Wednesday, October 22, 2003, 6:01:16 PM, Hal wrote:

[#84351] Re: Ruby-oriented Linux distro? — Andrew Walrond <andrew@...> 2003/10/22

On Wednesday 22 Oct 2003 11:02 am, Gavin Sinclair wrote:

[#84420] Struggling with variable arguments to block — "Gavin Sinclair" <gsinclair@...>

Hi -talk,

18 messages 2003/10/24
[#84428] Re: Struggling with variable arguments to block — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/10/24

Hi,

[#84604] ruby-dev summary 21637-21729 — Takaaki Tateishi <ttate@...>

Hello,

21 messages 2003/10/30
[#84787] Re: ruby-dev summary 21637-21729 — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2003/11/06

On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 07:01:28AM +0900, Takaaki Tateishi wrote:

[#84789] Re: ruby-dev summary 21637-21729 — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/11/06

Hi,

[#84792] Re: ruby-dev summary 21637-21729 — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2003/11/06

On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 11:17:59PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#84794] Re: ruby-dev summary 21637-21729 — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/11/06

Hi,

Re: Ruby TDD

From: Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
Date: 2003-10-12 17:00:40 UTC
List: ruby-talk #84065
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Kingsley wrote:

> Hi
>
> When doing TDD if there is code that processes data,  that comes from a user -

I read this as Telecommunications Device for the Deaf at first, but
I think you mean Test Driven Design. :-)

> e.g. logon information.
>
> Should my code contain tests to check that the information is in the correct
> format etc,  or should I do those checks in my tests?

Unit tests are to check that your code is operating correctly.
They mainly exist to prove that the program performs as required,
under specified conditions.
Tests on your input, to validate it, are not normally part of unit
testing code.  If the specification is a contract, it might be that
the program should fail spectacularly when given bad input, because
it is only contracted to work correctly for good input.  Thus this
testing for arbitrary input might not be considered as a unit test.
Indeed, it should be part of the program itself (if the spec says it
should handle such input).
>
> If I do checks for valid data in my code - do I then need tests
> that check that the code is checking if the user information is of
> correct format etc.

Well, you'd need checks for the validation code, to show that it was
operating correctly.  I think tests in the routines that call this
would be good to have, also.
>
> If I just put all those types of test in my tests only - It would mean that
> when someone runs the program - there are no checks in place to alert a user
> that they have used invalid user information. - Unless the user runs the
> tests before they run the program !

But the unit tests should be fixed anyway, so they can be run
automatically as needed, not requiring interaction.  So those
validation of input tests don't belong in the testing harness for
the program.
>
> I'm still confused

Is this clearer now?
>
> Thanks
>
> Kingsley
>
        Hugh

In This Thread

Prev Next