Comments on: Unit tests are for functionality, not code! http://www.ytechie.com/2008/06/unit-tests-are-for-functionality-not-code.html Productive software development using ASP.NET, C#, Adobe Flex, and other technologies and tools. Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:26:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Ricky Clarkson http://www.ytechie.com/2008/06/unit-tests-are-for-functionality-not-code.html/comment-page-1#comment-490 Ricky Clarkson Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13:34:12 +0000 http://www.ytechie.com/2008/06/unit-tests-are-for-functionality-not-code.html#comment-490 What is the smallest piece of code/method/function you need to write a test for? How about the identity function, that returns its only parameter? In Haskell, where there is no null, and no reflection, if you write a test for the identity function, how do you make it fail? What is the smallest piece of code/method/function you need to write a test for? How about the identity function, that returns its only parameter?

In Haskell, where there is no null, and no reflection, if you write a test for the identity function, how do you make it fail?

]]> By: Unit Test Code Coverage - What Is A Good Number? - James Newton-King http://www.ytechie.com/2008/06/unit-tests-are-for-functionality-not-code.html/comment-page-1#comment-489 Unit Test Code Coverage - What Is A Good Number? - James Newton-King Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:22:05 +0000 http://www.ytechie.com/2008/06/unit-tests-are-for-functionality-not-code.html#comment-489 [...] Code Coverage - What Is A Good Number? Shawn writes that you should have 100% test code coverage, Jason agrees. Tokes, a co-worker and the one who pointed the posts out to me, [...] [...] Code Coverage – What Is A Good Number? Shawn writes that you should have 100% test code coverage, Jason agrees. Tokes, a co-worker and the one who pointed the posts out to me, [...]

]]> By: Nick http://www.ytechie.com/2008/06/unit-tests-are-for-functionality-not-code.html/comment-page-1#comment-486 Nick Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:51:26 +0000 http://www.ytechie.com/2008/06/unit-tests-are-for-functionality-not-code.html#comment-486 If your code and functionality are not relatively equivilent, then I suspect you have problems. Either you have excess code or you have not identified all your functionality (which is why I disagree with the "write just enough code to pass your tests" theory; it assumes that your first pass on writing down testcases was complete). So yes your unit tests should be testing your properties (assuming you are developing using TDD). If not, the problem isn't that you need to add additional test cases to cover getting and setting those properties. Its that you need to add additional test cases to cover the functionality that uses those properties (unless you just put them in there for no reason). If your code and functionality are not relatively equivilent, then I suspect you have problems. Either you have excess code or you have not identified all your functionality (which is why I disagree with the “write just enough code to pass your tests” theory; it assumes that your first pass on writing down testcases was complete). So yes your unit tests should be testing your properties (assuming you are developing using TDD). If not, the problem isn’t that you need to add additional test cases to cover getting and setting those properties. Its that you need to add additional test cases to cover the functionality that uses those properties (unless you just put them in there for no reason).

]]> By: Geek Daily » Blog Archive » Friday Roundup for June 13, 2008 http://www.ytechie.com/2008/06/unit-tests-are-for-functionality-not-code.html/comment-page-1#comment-483 Geek Daily » Blog Archive » Friday Roundup for June 13, 2008 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:53:57 +0000 http://www.ytechie.com/2008/06/unit-tests-are-for-functionality-not-code.html#comment-483 [...] Unit tests are for functionality, not code! The prevailing philosophy in regards to unit testing is writing your tests before your code. In practice, this happens a lot less than it should. Why should we write our unit tests first? [...] [...] Unit tests are for functionality, not code! The prevailing philosophy in regards to unit testing is writing your tests before your code. In practice, this happens a lot less than it should. Why should we write our unit tests first? [...]

]]> By: Unit tests are for functionality, not code! - Dennis van der Stelt http://www.ytechie.com/2008/06/unit-tests-are-for-functionality-not-code.html/comment-page-1#comment-479 Unit tests are for functionality, not code! - Dennis van der Stelt Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:25:35 +0000 http://www.ytechie.com/2008/06/unit-tests-are-for-functionality-not-code.html#comment-479 [...] comes from two weblogs that have some unit testing comments. Jason Young posted the sentence and he refers to Obishawn who also has something to say. Why I’m writing this [...] [...] comes from two weblogs that have some unit testing comments. Jason Young posted the sentence and he refers to Obishawn who also has something to say. Why I’m writing this [...]

]]> By: anon http://www.ytechie.com/2008/06/unit-tests-are-for-functionality-not-code.html/comment-page-1#comment-478 anon Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:30:27 +0000 http://www.ytechie.com/2008/06/unit-tests-are-for-functionality-not-code.html#comment-478 1. Write a test for the new functionality 2. Run all tests and make sure that the new one fails (otherwise your test is pointless) 3. Write just enough code to pass the test 4. Run the tests again to see them pass 5. Repeat 1. Write a test for the new functionality
2. Run all tests and make sure that the new one fails
(otherwise your test is pointless)
3. Write just enough code to pass the test
4. Run the tests again to see them pass
5. Repeat

]]>