Am 10.07.2013 um 08:15 schrieb "Torsten Bergmann" <asta...@gmx.de>:
> Camillo wrote: >> Does anybody here distinguish failures and errors for real when doing TDD? > > Yes, it has a special meaning AND is very helpfull - ESPECIALLY when you > start with tests first (XPStyle): > Usually one writes the tests and then you try to get them from red over > yellow to > green: > > red: there is a real error, for instance a message is not yet implemented > (maybe only the test was written > and one uses the debugger and the "Create" functionality to create the > calls) > > yellow: the basic calls are there/messages implemented and working (no DNU) > but an expectation is not yet > met since an assertion fails > > green: everything is OK > > > Or to quote Kent Beck: http://www.xprogramming.com/testfram.htm > > <quote> > "Failures and Errors > > The framework distinguishes between failures and errors. A failure is an > anticipated problem. When you write tests, you check for expected results. If > you get a different answer, that is a failure. An error is more catastrophic, > a error condition you didn't check for." > </quote> > That is funny. I was thinking the same when replying to Cami. I wanted to write something like an error being more catastrophic... but then I was thinking about it and I'm not sure anymore. Sure they are different...wait...are they? The longer I think about it the lesser I'm convinced that it needs to stay like it is. Especially in the case of should:raise: where a piece of broken code triggers only a failure. Just to be correct...No Cami...that doesn't mean it needs to be changed either :) Norbert > Please keep it separated, it is very usefull. > >> Besides the complexity added to the testing framework it is a burden for >> newcomers. > > Learning about Pragmas, Methods, Classes, Debugger, marking expected > failures, ... is also a burden for newcomers. > Will we throw them out? No! > > SUnit is still really simple and a pleasure to work with! > > Thx > Torsten > > >
