On 17 March 2011 18:42, Vamsee Kanakala <vkanak...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday 17 March 2011 05:38 PM, steve wrote:
> > On 03/15/2011 02:35 PM, Asokan Pichai wrote:
> >>
> >> A curiosity question: like make, is there a facility to run only those
> tests
> >> that correspond to
> >> changed code. Even as I type this the question seems ill-defined etc.,
> but
> >> still ....
> >>
> > Umm, that kinda defeats the purpose of TDD. When you run the test suite
> > basically, the intention is to know that you haven't inadvertently broken
> > something that you thought was unrelated by your latest changes.
>

One of the reasons I added the `ill-defined' in my post.
This seems an interesting problem though.
--One does want to ensure that a change has not broken anything, but
can that be done by ONLY testing where a breakage is possible? Sounds
really hard problem to solve.


> The purpose of TDD is not to check if anything has broken in the app.
> That's the purpose of unit/developer testing in general. Running the
> whole test suite every time you add/modify a test is going to be
> seriously time-consuming (which refers to my 20-sec lag). TDD's purpose
> on the other hand is to allow the discovery of the most
> simplified/testable interface to your app. In other words, TDD is more
> about application design than reliability. Of course, it ends up helping
> the latter anyway.


Yeah; TDD is not just regression testing. But using such labels which
were defined in a context where coders wrote code and testers tested that
code is one of the areas of some confusion in the understanding of TDD
at least to me, for a time.

I tend to think of TDD as exploratory development and best suited for those
situations when part of the solution is NECESSARY for defining the
problem itself and/or the exact approach to solution is yet unclear.

Thoughts?
-- 
Asokan Pichai
*-------------------*
We will find a way. Or, make one. (Hannibal)
_______________________________________________
ILUGC Mailing List:
http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc

Reply via email to