On 12/14/06, Bret Pettichord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Once my test, using this method, is passing, then i start my "Crazy OOP"
stuff (mostly use simple design patterns, actually).
Would you also post which "simple design patterns" are you using? I am very
interested to see what others are d
On 12/14/06, Bret Pettichord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now i test-drive all my "gui models" and testing frameworks with simple
tests.
Test first watir scirpts? Would you post a sample? I am very interested.
--
Zeljko Filipin
http://zeljkofilipin.com/
_
Chris McMahon wrote:
> Your first pass is not going to be pretty. That's OK. My first pass
> is procedural; Bret's first pass is crazy OOP or something; I don't
> know what Jonathan's first pass is like, but I gather it has a lot of
> code duplication. However you can get it to work.
Actual
The stuff i use a lot gets refactored a
lot until i am happy with the design.
Actually, Bret refactors to the point where I find his code a little
difficult to parse in my head. :)
One thing at a time.
Amen.
In other words, I agree with everything Chris said. The only problem I
have wi
philip reed wrote:
> When I sit down to implement this my perfectionism gets all caught up
> in questions like, "Do I need a separate class for my client's
> specific site and another for the Sendcard
> UI in general?" (so that other sendcard sites can easily reuse the
> same code) or stuff like th
In other words, details like
the form to send a card having the following inputs:
- Text field with name "to[0]"
- Text field with name "to_email[0]"
- Text field with name "from"
- Text field with name "from_email"
...
- Submit button with name "preview"
don't belong in high-level test code.
My "due diligence" has been rather sketchy -- just trying a couple of
listserv queries and skimming the User Guide for the first time in a
while -- so if this is answered elsewhere feel free to gently rebuke
me and point me in that direction. :)
I'll seize on a simple example of something I'm work
