XpdWiki
| FrontPage |
| RecentChanges |
| XtC |
| FindPage |
| PageIndex |
| XpApprentices |
UserPreferences
Edit this page
Referenced by
...nobody
CanSmallFunctionalTestsReplaceUnitTests |
|
| Your trail: | |
The 2 bits of unit testing I have a problem with are:
- testing in isolation
- Because this doesn't test the inter-component interactions,
- Because the tests don't prove that the system works as a whole (which is what I'm mostly interested in)
- Because when unit testing a component in isolation, I have to anticipate the environment that the component will be subject to. (and when that environment changes I have to remember to change the unit tests)
- testing implementation
- Because I can't refactor or change implementation without frequently breaking tests
Given these two problems, Why not use small (class-level?) functional tests instead?
(And if I'm not mistaken, aren't TestFirstDesign tests functional tests anyway?) - PhilDawes
I not sure I understand what you mean by a small (class-level) functional test. I have always take the term 'functional test' to refer to an integrated system-level test. Unit tests are not a substitute for Functional tests. At ConneXtra we practise TestFirstDesign at the (class) unit level. - RachelDavies
Good questions. My answer to them is a resounding yes. We've been running XP fairly successfully by basing our testing on just small functional test (AcceptanceTests). See my description under AcceptanceTestOnlyDevelopment.
-- GeoffBache
³host³³date³October 18, 2001³agent³Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0)³CanSmallFunctionalTestsReplaceUnitTest ³³CanSmallFunctionalTestsReplaceUnitTests
| Edit this page More info... Attach file... |
| This page last changed on 19-Oct-2003 17:25:27 BST by unknown. |