Russell Gold wrote:
>It seems to me that one source of resistance I am finding for unit
>testing is the term "test." We have an understaffed "Testing" group
>which writes these things called tests, which are very visible to
>management. When we suggest that developers should be writing unit
>tests, managers agree and enthusiastically assign tests to developers,
>who don't like the idea...
>
>I have found several managers who have not understood the distinction.
>After all, tests are tests, right? So in my last pitch, I started to
>use the term "assertion" instead. That is, instead of saying - first,
>we write these tests and see that they fail... I said, first we make
>these assertions on the code, and see that they are not satisfied...
>My point seemed to be taken, and I am not certain whether it was the
>language or just a more intelligent manager.
>
>So should we really be speaking of Assertion-Driven Development rather
>than Test-Driven Development? It would certainly eliminate the need to
>warn that it is not about testing.
>
>
>
Very interesting idea. "Assertion" is linked to testing, but doesn't
have the connotations that "test" or something like "specification
driven development" would.
Michael Feathers
author, Working Effectively with Legacy Code
www.objectmentor.com
To Post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
