headers
Ian D. Stewart | 1 Mar 2005 06:41

Re: Framework XML


David Chelimsky wrote:

>OK, so when I'm developing a webapp using Struts, I like to use
>StrutsTestCase to test drive the development of Struts components. I'll
>start with something like this:
>
> 
>
>public void testMappingExists() {
>
>  setRequestPath("/somePath");
>
>  actionPerform();
>
>}
>
> 
>
>When I run that, it throws an error because there's no action mapping yet.
>So I add one to struts-config.xml and the test passes, verifying that
>configuration is set up the way I expect.
>
> 
>
>So isn't this a unit test of the configuration file? 
>
No, because you're not testing a unit.  Neither the Action nor the 
struts config are directly manipulated within your test.  What you are 
actually doing is testing the interaction between a number of units,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
steven.hale | 1 Mar 2005 09:11

Re: Framework XML


>I like test-first, and dynamic languages as much as the next guy, but
>I 
>really have to disagree with this blog entry.
>
>XML is in no way agile compared to Java. You can implement a fairly 
>nice object model in Java. Or, if that isn't good enough use the 
>interpreter pattern to build a little language. Or embed an
>interpreter 
>like Beanshell.
>
>If the thing that makes Java non-agile is the recompilation, then use
>
>an IDE with an incremental compiler like JBuilder or Eclipse. Then it
>
>compiles along the way. Even without incremental compilation, most
>IDEs 
>are doing front-end parsing and showing errors almost instantaneously
>
>after you type. And most of the IDEs provide auto-completion, 
>error-correction, and refactoring. That gets rid of a lot of 
>boilerplate.
>
>Now, if you want to say that Java is not agile and flexible because
>it 
>does not have full closures, or dynamic typing, or some nicer syntax 
>for tuples, I totally agree ;-)
>
>Bob Evans
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Donaldson, John (GEO | 1 Mar 2005 09:51
Picon
Favicon

RE: Framework XML


The problem with XML and code is that the code starts to know
about the XML. Perhaps the root node, perhaps that an element 
exists at the place in the structure. So, slowly your code
becomes tightly bound to the XML schema. 

You should have tests in place round all these joins to help 
when you restructure. Whether these tests, aim at the XML or
the code, it doesn't seem to matter much. You just need something
to help you refactor the mix of code and XML.

We do refactor our XML as well as our code, don't we?

John D. 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/testdrivendevelopment/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    testdrivendevelopment-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Anthony Williams | 1 Mar 2005 12:07
X-Face
Picon
Favicon

Re: Randomness revisited


"Phlip" <phlip2005 <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Michael Brunton-Spall wrote:
>
>> ... flip ...
>> ... flip ...
>> ... flip ... flipping ...
>> ... flip ...
>> ... flipped ...
>> ... flip 
>> Flipping ...
>> ... flip ...
>
> I got you to say "flip" 9 times. ;-)

"Did you listen to a word I said?"

"You said 'flip'! Hur, Hur, Hur, <snigger>"

(Sorry, I recently watched some of "100 greatest cartoons", which showed a
clip of a certain MTV cartoon)

Anthony
--

-- 
Anthony Williams
Software Developer

 
Yahoo! Groups Links
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Steven Gordon | 1 Mar 2005 15:21
Picon
Favicon

RE: Framework XML


This is certainly true for any XML we design to be read by our own code.  

However, we generally do not write tests to verify the functionality of third-party software components,
and even if we did it would be after the fact, not TDD.  Why should a framework be any different than any other
third-party software?  Why would we refactor the XML used by a framework, unless we were also refactoring
the code of that framework?

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Donaldson, John (GEO) [mailto:john.m.donaldson <at> hp.com] 
	Sent: Tue 3/1/2005 1:51 AM 
	To: testdrivendevelopment <at> yahoogroups.com 
	Cc: 
	Subject: RE: [TDD] Framework XML
	
	
	The problem with XML and code is that the code starts to know
	about the XML. Perhaps the root node, perhaps that an element 
	exists at the place in the structure. So, slowly your code
	becomes tightly bound to the XML schema. 
	
	You should have tests in place round all these joins to help 
	when you restructure. Whether these tests, aim at the XML or
	the code, it doesn't seem to matter much. You just need something
	to help you refactor the mix of code and XML.
	
	We do refactor our XML as well as our code, don't we?
	
	John D.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Donaldson, John (GEO | 1 Mar 2005 19:38
Picon
Favicon

RE: Framework XML


Steven,

you are right to call me to task. I was just musing about XML and code,
and I have, I now see, drifted a long way off-topic.

John D.

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Gordon [mailto:sagordon <at> asu.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 3:22 PM
To: testdrivendevelopment <at> yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [TDD] Framework XML

This is certainly true for any XML we design to be read by our own code.

 
However, we generally do not write tests to verify the functionality of
third-party software components, and even if we did it would be after
the fact, not TDD.  Why should a framework be any different than any
other third-party software?  Why would we refactor the XML used by a
framework, unless we were also refactoring the code of that framework?

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Donaldson, John (GEO) [mailto:john.m.donaldson <at> hp.com] 
	Sent: Tue 3/1/2005 1:51 AM 
	To: testdrivendevelopment <at> yahoogroups.com 
	Cc: 
	Subject: RE: [TDD] Framework XML
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
ru551an | 2 Mar 2005 03:50

AnyUnit C/C++ Edition add-in for MSVS 2003 is available


AnyUnit C/C++ Edition add-in for Visual Studio 2003 .NET is available
for download at http://www.anyunit.com. AnyUnit is a unit testing
environment that allows developers to work with virtually any type of
test frameworks, commercial and open source. It comes bundled with
support for boost_test and CppUnit test layouts; please visit the
website for details.

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/testdrivendevelopment/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    testdrivendevelopment-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
J. B. Rainsberger | 2 Mar 2005 05:00
Favicon

Re: Framework XML


David Chelimsky wrote:
> OK, so when I'm developing a webapp using Struts, I like to use
> StrutsTestCase to test drive the development of Struts components. I'll
> start with something like this:
> 
>  
> 
> public void testMappingExists() {
> 
>   setRequestPath("/somePath");
> 
>   actionPerform();
> 
> }
> 
>  
> 
> When I run that, it throws an error because there's no action mapping yet.
> So I add one to struts-config.xml and the test passes, verifying that
> configuration is set up the way I expect.
> 
>  
> 
> So isn't this a unit test of the configuration file? To me it is. Sort of. I
> get all the benefits of unit tests that are testing java code. It allows me
> test drive the code and it helps to localize errors that are introduced
> later. I say "Sort of" because there are no assertions. The test never
> really fails, it just either throws errors or not. That makes me
> uncomfortable. But not as uncomfortable as I'd be waiting until I deployed
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |
headers
Ian D. Stewart | 2 Mar 2005 05:32

Re: Framework XML


J. B. Rainsberger wrote:

>David Chelimsky wrote:
>  
>
>>OK, so when I'm developing a webapp using Struts, I like to use
>>StrutsTestCase to test drive the development of Struts components. I'll
>>start with something like this:
>>
>> 
>>
>>public void testMappingExists() {
>>
>>  setRequestPath("/somePath");
>>
>>  actionPerform();
>>
>>}
>>
>> 
>>
>>When I run that, it throws an error because there's no action mapping yet.
>>So I add one to struts-config.xml and the test passes, verifying that
>>configuration is set up the way I expect.
>>
>> 
>>
>>So isn't this a unit test of the configuration file? To me it is. Sort of. I
>>get all the benefits of unit tests that are testing java code. It allows me
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |
headers
Ian D. Stewart | 2 Mar 2005 05:42

Re: Framework XML


steven.hale <at> mochamail.com wrote:

>>I like test-first, and dynamic languages as much as the next guy, but
>>I 
>>really have to disagree with this blog entry.
>>
>>XML is in no way agile compared to Java. You can implement a fairly 
>>nice object model in Java. Or, if that isn't good enough use the 
>>interpreter pattern to build a little language. Or embed an
>>interpreter 
>>like Beanshell.
>>
>>If the thing that makes Java non-agile is the recompilation, then use
>>
>>an IDE with an incremental compiler like JBuilder or Eclipse. Then it
>>
>>compiles along the way. Even without incremental compilation, most
>>IDEs 
>>are doing front-end parsing and showing errors almost instantaneously
>>
>>after you type. And most of the IDEs provide auto-completion, 
>>error-correction, and refactoring. That gets rid of a lot of 
>>boilerplate.
>>
>>Now, if you want to say that Java is not agile and flexible because
>>it 
>>does not have full closures, or dynamic typing, or some nicer syntax 
>>for tuples, I totally agree ;-)
>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane