Re: Unit Testing in .Net
- From: Jacques Bosch <jfbosch@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:51:43 +0200
>measure twice, cut once.
And not the fingers either!
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Kerneels Roos <kerneels@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Wise words from a wise man!
>
>
> On 2/15/2011 1:33 PM, Homme, James wrote:
>
>> Hi Kerneels,
>> I had a Wood Shop teacher who told me measure twice, cut once.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> Jim Homme,
>> Usability Services,
>> Phone: 412-544-1810. Skype: jim.homme
>> Internal recipients, Read my accessibility blog. Discuss accessibility
>> here. Accessibility Wiki: Breaking news and accessibility advice
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
>> programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kerneels Roos
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 2:27 AM
>> To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: Unit Testing in .Net
>>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> The more I read about it and try it for myself the more I can see the
>> value of unit testing. it looks however like something you need to do
>> from day one of the coding of a project. It's very hard to come in
>> afterwards and add tests to code that is suspect. I'm very impressed
>> with NUnit, but the GUI runner I don't find very accessible
>> unfortunately. Most frameworks seem to have a command line runner also,
>> so one can do that.
>>
>> Apart from the May 2009 book "The Art of Unit Testing ", there's also a
>> seemingly seminal book on TDD from 2002 focussing on Java -- can't find
>> the details now unfortunately, the author is Ken Peck.
>>
>> What I do realise is that , for years now I've been coding and then
>> testing while TDD is the other way around. The code then test approach
>> is more of a cowboy coder / hacker style which sutes the creative, risk
>> taking right brainers :-). To shift to the test then code approach might
>> take some time and effort.
>>
>> Now that I think about it, TDD makes a lot of sense for VI or blind
>> folks. If used properly it can minimise the need for debuggers. Don't
>> know about you guys, but I don't particularly like using a debugger.
>>
>> Forgive the rambling.
>>
>> Kerneels
>>
>> On 2/14/2011 6:00 AM, Dave wrote:
>>
>>> With that said, lots of people don't follow TDD or some variant
>>> because it does take a lot more time. You also have to consider that
>>> test code usually piles up *very* quickly. You could have a few
>>> hundred lines of code and to thoroughly test it (i.e. if you used TDD,
>>> or if you measure code coverage), you'll need triple that in test code
>>> or more. Once you make any changes in the production code, you end up
>>> spending lots of time making changes to the pile of test code.
>>>
>>> Not to say that you shouldn't test thoroughly, but lots don't
>>> (especially to the degree they should) for some valid reasons. If you
>>> can pull it off, it certainly will give your users less headaches when
>>> trying to use your products. It's one of those "open ended" problems;
>>> there's reasonable points to stop writing tests, but never a "end" as
>>> there's always some other condition you could try for an sufficiently
>>> complex piece of software.
>>>
>>> You also don't want to go down the road of testing user interface
>>> components as it requires hooking deeply into OS level events (most
>>> ironically, accessibility is useful here).
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/13/11, Kerneels Roos<kerneels@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Dave,
>>>>
>>>> It is not so nice to come in afterwards and write tests for classes,
>>>> which I'm doing now to ensure everything works right, but I can imagine
>>>> a TDD approach could work very well indeed. As I understand it, TDD is
>>>> also core to XP (extreme programming).
>>>>
>>>> For anything new I'm going to write tests before coding and also look
>>>> into TDD more formally. Once you know how to code and design algorithms
>>>> one should invest in some solid software engineering techniques and get
>>>> a good methodology to follow. I strongly believe it will save tons of
>>>> time and produce far better software if the project is anything larger
>>>> than a simple CRUD system.
>>>>
>>>> I can't decide if the book "The Art of Unit Testing" is worth the $24 or
>>>> not though :-)
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> On 2/13/2011 8:55 AM, Dave wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The general approach advocated by some is that of Test Driven
>>>>> Development.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to say that whatever I've written using this approach has been
>>>>> far more robust when it comes to quality.
>>>>>
>>>>> The .Net unit test frameworks of which NUnit is only one, all have
>>>>> lots in common. Visual Studio comes with a unit test framework as
>>>>> well and integrates the running of tests within VS itself. The actual
>>>>> tool chosen is a personal choice -- if you like integration with VS
>>>>> for example or something independent. What tool's UI do you like,
>>>>> etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Basically, they all use .Net attributes to "markup" methods and
>>>>> classes with metadata; think test name, test description, run time,
>>>>> category, etc. Then, at runtime, the runner just via reflection grabs
>>>>> all of the tests and invokes them programmatically.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for TDD, if you're not familiar with it, I'd recommend looking it
>>>>> up. Essentially, you write tests before actually even implementing
>>>>> anything. The tests serve as a statement of what you expect to be
>>>>> true. This obviously requires that you iron out what your class
>>>>> interface should look like; this might not be the style you're used to
>>>>> and something C++ developers are more acustomed to.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, as you go along, you already have a set of validation tests
>>>>> that verify that your stuff actually works without doing the tedious
>>>>> pattern of compile, run, manually check if it works, and rinse/repeat.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/11/11, Jacques Bosch<jfbosch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've had good success with NUnit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Kerneels Roos<kerneels@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi, I've investigated NUnit and it'the GUI is quite accessible with
>>>>>>> JFW.
>>>>>>> Also interested in MBUnit / Galeo but haven't tested the GUI yet.
>>>>>>> Unit
>>>>>>> testing seems like a brilliant way to develop better code and keep it
>>>>>>> working while changing things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Advantage of NUnit is that the syntax is XUnit compatible, so what
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> learn there directly applies to a host of other unit test frameworks
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> languages. The more advanced Galeo / MBUnit is also XUnit compatible
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>> you need more power later on.
>>>>>>> Could anyone recommend a good book on this topic / some comments of
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> own experience? I hope unit testing isn't just an accademic ideal but
>>>>>>> actually something that can be done economically.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I found this e-book (PDF, epub and mobiM):
>>>>>>> http://www.manning.com/osherove/
>>>>>>> but it's from 2009 and doesn't seem to cover Galeo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any comments most welcome!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Kerneels
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Kerneels Roos
>>>>>>> Cell: +27 (0)82 309 1998
>>>>>>> Skype: cornelis.roos
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "There are only two kinds of programming languages in the world;
>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>> everyone complains about, and those nobody uses."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> __________
>>>>>>> View the list's information and change your settings at
>>>>>>> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques Bosch
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Software Architecture and Development
>>>>>> Independent Contractor
>>>>>> Cell: +27 824711807 Fax: +27 86 504 4726
>>>>>> E-Mail: jfbosch@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>
>>>>>> __________
>>>>> View the list's information and change your settings at
>>>>> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>> Kerneels Roos
>>>> Cell: +27 (0)82 309 1998
>>>> Skype: cornelis.roos
>>>>
>>>> "There are only two kinds of programming languages in the world; those
>>>> everyone complains about, and those nobody uses."
>>>>
>>>> __________
>>>> View the list's information and change your settings at
>>>> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________
>>> View the list's information and change your settings at
>>> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>>>
>>> --
>> Kerneels Roos
>> Cell: +27 (0)82 309 1998
>> Skype: cornelis.roos
>>
>> "There are only two kinds of programming languages in the world; those
>> everyone complains about, and those nobody uses."
>>
>> __________
>> View the list's information and change your settings at
>> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>>
>>
>> This e-mail and any attachments to it are confidential and are intended
>> solely for use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If
>> you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately
>> and then delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not
>> keep, use, disclose, copy or distribute this e-mail without the author's
>> prior permission. The views expressed in this e-mail message do not
>> necessarily represent the views of Highmark Inc., its subsidiaries, or
>> affiliates.
>> __________
>> View the list's information and change your settings at
>> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>>
>>
> --
> Kerneels Roos
> Cell: +27 (0)82 309 1998
> Skype: cornelis.roos
>
> "There are only two kinds of programming languages in the world; those
> everyone complains about, and those nobody uses."
>
> __________
> View the list's information and change your settings at
> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>
>
--
Jacques Bosch
Software Architecture and Development
Independent Contractor
Cell: +27 824711807 Fax: +27 86 504 4726
E-Mail: jfbosch@xxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
