Adam,
On 5/1/13 11:25 PM, Adam Sroka wrote:
Maybe I'm just dense, but: what is it about this that is particular to TDD?
Seems to me that monkey patching without tests is *fuck all* more dangerous
than writing a test, making it pass in the simplest way possible, and then
improving the design. What am I missing???
Monkey patching is a common method to create testing seams, even by people who would not use monkey patching in the deliverable system code. It's a quick-and-dirty way of mocking using the real objects.
- George
On May 1, 2013 8:12 PM, "John Roth" <JohnRoth1@...> wrote:
**
On 5/1/13 7:12 AM, David Stanek wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Angel Java Lopez
<ajlopez2000@... <mailto:ajlopez2000%40gmail.com>>wrote:
John, usually I don't find the case "this test corrupts that test",
and I
wrote thousands of tests.
Any example/case?
I've seen this in Python tests where developers monkey-patch things and
forget to set them back or otherwise muck with global state. This has
been
the result of design issues.
Snort. This is a continuing issue for the Python developers as well.
John Roth
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
* George Dinwiddie *
Software Development
Consultant and Coach
----------------------------------------------------------------------
