Chris Morris | 5 Jan 19:33 2010

Re: Unit testing

Looks like we have another wrinkle for Mr. Feathers:

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Michael Hill <mike.hill <at>>wrote:

> The biggest single difference is scope, and the second biggest is
> shipping-reality.
> Traditionally, unit tests involve much larger units. A typical old-school
> example would be a set of unit tests that run against a COM object,
> regardless of whether that interface involves a single class or 300 of
> them.
>  Microtests are truly micro, irrespective of packaging.
> Traditionally, unit tests -- indeed most tests -- pay very close attention
> to testing the exact binary image in the exact binary environment in which
> it runs.  Microtests are almost entirely unconcerned with this.  Microtests
> take for granted that they only test that object X works the way it's
> supposed to  *with  the assumption* that object X's collaborators work the
> way they're supposed to.
> So you see that although a unit test *could* be a microtest, the word
> itself
> has a prior meaning that confuses experienced test-makers who are XP noobs.
> Seeya,
> Hill
> --

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    testdrivendevelopment-digest <at> 
    testdrivendevelopment-fullfeatured <at>

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    testdrivendevelopment-unsubscribe <at>

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: