Every software developer writes unit tests, but the unit test typically
end up being files on their hard drives at some point. Making unit
tests into artifacts is a relatively recent phenomenon, and even more
so is the idea of writing test cases before you code (one of the tents
of XP). If unit tests are included in the distribution, so much the
better! But I wouldn't overstate the value of these tests. They might
tell you that the nails were driven in all the way, or that current
flows to the electric lights, but they're not going to tell you whether
or not a building is structurally sound.
--- "Tim.Churches" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
---------------------------------
Wayne Wilson wrote:
> Finally if software is developed with unit test capabilities, it is
> quite easy to repeat unit tests upon software modification, so this
does
> not become much of a burden either.
Indeed. My approach these days when considering open source software
components for serious use is to look for the unit tests (and for
functional and integration tests too). If there are no unit tests, it
indicates that the code was written on a wing-and-a-prayer basis and is
best avoided.
Tim C
===
Gregory Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"It is foolish to answer a question that
you do not understand."
--G. Polya ("How to Solve It")
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openhealth/
<*> 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/
