On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 08:56:17PM -0000, Jeff Grigg wrote:
> Tests in TDD are bounded by your desire to add functionality: You
> only need sufficient tests to force the creation of the desired
> functionality. If people keep writing tests, without writing code
> (meaning that all the new tests pass without changing existing
> production code), then they're not really doing Test Driven
> Development. In TDD, maybe a few extra tests will be written, here
> and there, just to improve confidence. But I don't see it getting
> out of hand like Greenwood assumes it will.
That was my understanding as well. The same things in XP that attempt to
prevent gold-plating (adding lots of non-essential requirements that are
"niceties rather than necessities") did so for the tests as well as for the
code.
I.e., the priorities that make me focus on critically valued features first and
then the next most critical (and so on), should also, for a given story, make
me focus on the most critical/valued tests (and so on).
If acceptance tests and/or unit-tests are being proliferated without adding
much value, I would think someone was not applying the rules of YAGNI and
simplicity and customer-driven value to ALL the coding activity (the tests too)
More formal testing organizations trying to go agile could perhaps use a more
formal strategy for prioritizing which tests or kinds of tests for a given
story where most important to do first.
--
Brad Appleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.bradapp.net
Software CM Patterns (www.scmpatterns.com)
Effective Teamwork, Practical Integration
"And miles to go before I sleep." -- Robert Frost
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/
