Le 21 avr. 2015 à 10:44, Sven Van Caekenberghe a écrit : > >> On 21 Apr 2015, at 10:36, Christophe Demarey <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> To come back to my proposition, it is just a first step to BDD to not >> prevent people to define tests with something like >> shouldAccountBalanceBePositiveAfterEachOperation (more behavior driven) >> rather than testMyWonderfulMethod that may leads people to test the >> implementation details and not the expected behavior. > > Not that your naming ideas are bad, but right now you can write > > testAccountShouldBePositiveAfterEachOperation > > which is not that bad
I agree. I do not want to push things that won't be used. That's why I did not yet proposed a slice. Maybe I will just let it as it is now and just propose to include the refactoring to have the logic of the test selection in one place. With Guille, we discussed a bit around tests and came to the conclusion that it would be good to have a blog post or a book chapter on test solutions and how to test the good thing. We have, for example: SUnit BabyMock (http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~zeroflag/BabyMock2) Mocketry (http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~dionisiy/Mocketry) PhExample (http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~PharoExtras/Phexample) BoTest (http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~CAR/BoTest) Kiwi TDD (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2t_MbVAdis) and maybe others. Thanks for the feedback.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
