<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: How much testing is enough?</title> <atom:link href="http://ripper234.com/p/how-much-testing-is-enough/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://ripper234.com/p/how-much-testing-is-enough/</link> <description>Stuff Ron Gross Finds Interesting</description> <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 11:28:30 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator> <item><title>By: yonatan</title><link>http://ripper234.com/p/how-much-testing-is-enough/comment-page-1/#comment-1520</link> <dc:creator>yonatan</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 26 Jul 2009 17:05:58 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://ripper234.com/?p=1092#comment-1520</guid> <description>Yaron: I agree about simple tests (preferably a test method per single behavior of a single method in the class being tested) - although it can be frustrating having to refactor your unit tests along with your code, usually I think you need to write tests / make the tests pass after a refactoring anyway, so the price isn&#039;t so big.
imho integration tests don&#039;t help you refactor as well, they are more suitable for when you already have a feature working and wanna make sure it&#039;s according to spec and that it stays ok. you can also make them more configurable so your clients can add cases without coding and recompiling (see fitness etc)</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yaron: I agree about simple tests (preferably a test method per single behavior of a single method in the class being tested) &#8211; although it can be frustrating having to refactor your unit tests along with your code, usually I think you need to write tests / make the tests pass after a refactoring anyway, so the price isn&#8217;t so big.<br
/> imho integration tests don&#8217;t help you refactor as well, they are more suitable for when you already have a feature working and wanna make sure it&#8217;s according to spec and that it stays ok. you can also make them more configurable so your clients can add cases without coding and recompiling (see fitness etc)</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Yaron Naveh</title><link>http://ripper234.com/p/how-much-testing-is-enough/comment-page-1/#comment-1518</link> <dc:creator>Yaron Naveh</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:58:54 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://ripper234.com/?p=1092#comment-1518</guid> <description>The easy tests I actually do the &quot;test-first&quot; way - write them before the code.
I sometimes do it also for more &quot;complex&quot; tests - but we have to be careful here: In my current project many features are agile in their nature and changes in api (or even functionality) are not rare. Maintaining tests for &quot;agile&quot; features can be very frustrating, especially when I need to explain my peers why tweaking a simple method functionality takes more than a second...</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The easy tests I actually do the &#8220;test-first&#8221; way &#8211; write them before the code.</p><p>I sometimes do it also for more &#8220;complex&#8221; tests &#8211; but we have to be careful here: In my current project many features are agile in their nature and changes in api (or even functionality) are not rare. Maintaining tests for &#8220;agile&#8221; features can be very frustrating, especially when I need to explain my peers why tweaking a simple method functionality takes more than a second&#8230;</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: ripper234</title><link>http://ripper234.com/p/how-much-testing-is-enough/comment-page-1/#comment-1504</link> <dc:creator>ripper234</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:20:04 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://ripper234.com/?p=1092#comment-1504</guid> <description>We don&#039;t usually use code coverage tools. I personally try to write tests for the meaningful/complex features, and the tests that are easy to write. You probably don&#039;t want to write tests that are both difficult to write and maintain and are sure to pass - but it&#039;s not always easy to spot them in advance.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We don&#8217;t usually use code coverage tools. I personally try to write tests for the meaningful/complex features, and the tests that are easy to write. You probably don&#8217;t want to write tests that are both difficult to write and maintain and are sure to pass &#8211; but it&#8217;s not always easy to spot them in advance.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Boaz</title><link>http://ripper234.com/p/how-much-testing-is-enough/comment-page-1/#comment-1503</link> <dc:creator>Boaz</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:03:22 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://ripper234.com/?p=1092#comment-1503</guid> <description>Also, how do you know your code is well tested? Do you just think/write all the tests you want to write that test every feature of your code? Do you rely on code coverage?</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also, how do you know your code is well tested? Do you just think/write all the tests you want to write that test every feature of your code? Do you rely on code coverage?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
