On 10 May 2012 19:32, D. Michael McIntyre <[email protected]> wrote: > I think even worse than that is keeping the tests working over time. We had > some tests, but they didn't survive the port.
But that's just another sign that they weren't terribly relevant unit tests. Even though they appeared a long time ago, they were still very sketchy tests written long after the code they were testing. If they had had a more effective coverage, they would actually have been useful in the port (by telling us whether we had broken anything) and so breaking the tests would itself have been enough incentive to fix them. > Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? > I think that's Latin for "who will test the unit tests?" Isn't it technically "who will test the unit testers?" I'm only a relatively recent convert to thorough unit testing, basically because I had become so used to bad unit tests written by programmers in companies who just thought they probably ought to be writing some. One thing that I found helpful in forming a better opinion was starting to think of the tests as a bit like an exam _for me_ -- do I understand the problem well enough to write a really good test for it? And I believe this question is how that Latin phrase actually originated. Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
