Re: Tests ¡°scoped¡± to implementation
|
=
I'd add the test because it would require reasoning about the specific code to decide whether it would (probably) run.
Suppose we implemented it with a hash table, for example :)
And that's my point. An order or particular?test cases you wanna have depends (or can depend) on your implementation. If you go for a particular?solution, like Hashtable or do sth else it can simply drive you to write a new test case which shall fail first. I thought that idea of TDD (at least how it was defined by Uncle Bob) is to add a new failing test that would force you to change implementation of your SUT, and not simply repeat what is already done¡?
That depends; if you have known requirements, it makes sense to add unit tests to confirm the corresponding behavior, even if they pass when you write them, as you might change your implementation later and any requirements you forget to test for now could easily be forgotten. The fact that your current implementation happens to pass those tests doesn¡¯t make them superfluous.
br JM ?
R On Jan 16, 2020, at 7:25 AM, Rene Wiersma via Groups.Io < R.wiersma@...> wrote:
Purely from a TDD point of view it is not necessary to write a test for the last case, as we would not have to add or change any existing code to make it pass. However, in this case I would add the test for completeness sake, and future reference.
Ron Jeffries
The seemingly easy way of learning ¡ª by asking ¡ª is not necessarily the best. When you eventually understand, you will understand fully. ¡ª Dragon ? ?The Line War ? ?(Neal Asher)
|
