Sprint Planning Meetings – determine if a work item is “planned”?
We’ve been working with Scrum for a while now, generally successfully. However of late, as the pressure has started to mount up we’ve encountered several situations where items came through planning meetings but when it actually came time to code, it became apparent they were woefully under-specified.
Sprint Planning Meetings – determine if a work item is “planned”?
We’ve been working with Scrum for a while now, generally successfully. However of late, as the pressure has started to mount up we’ve encountered several situations where items came through planning meetings but when it actually came time to code, it became apparent they were woefully under-specified.
Are “Stocks” a TDD/Unit testing anti pattern?
From Martin Fowler’s Mocks Aren’t Stubs he states that Stubs provide canned answers to calls made during the test while Mocks objects pre-programmed with expectations which form a specification of the calls they are expected to receive.
In addition several sources state that Stubs shouldn’t fail tests, but Mock could.
Are “Stocks” a TDD/Unit testing anti pattern?
From Martin Fowler’s Mocks Aren’t Stubs he states that Stubs provide canned answers to calls made during the test while Mocks objects pre-programmed with expectations which form a specification of the calls they are expected to receive.
In addition several sources state that Stubs shouldn’t fail tests, but Mock could.
Are “Stocks” a TDD/Unit testing anti pattern?
From Martin Fowler’s Mocks Aren’t Stubs he states that Stubs provide canned answers to calls made during the test while Mocks objects pre-programmed with expectations which form a specification of the calls they are expected to receive.
In addition several sources state that Stubs shouldn’t fail tests, but Mock could.
Are “Stocks” a TDD/Unit testing anti pattern?
From Martin Fowler’s Mocks Aren’t Stubs he states that Stubs provide canned answers to calls made during the test while Mocks objects pre-programmed with expectations which form a specification of the calls they are expected to receive.
In addition several sources state that Stubs shouldn’t fail tests, but Mock could.
Are “Stocks” a TDD/Unit testing anti pattern?
From Martin Fowler’s Mocks Aren’t Stubs he states that Stubs provide canned answers to calls made during the test while Mocks objects pre-programmed with expectations which form a specification of the calls they are expected to receive.
In addition several sources state that Stubs shouldn’t fail tests, but Mock could.
Building complex algorithms with TDD
I’m trying to adopt TDD in my daily programming practice. I use it at work very effectively, but I’m having trouble with my personal projects where I’m using some complex algorithms.
Do I need a suite of unit tests for inner business-logic class? Since it’s going to replicate the acceptance test suite for 90% [duplicate]
Will the answer for the question remain the same if, for example, that acceptance test suite takes 30 sec to run? 5 mins? 1 hour?
Characterization in Testing: Unit test or Functional test [duplicate]
This question already has answers here: How to keep the trunk stable when tests take a long time? (7 answers) Closed 10 years ago. So I’m trying to push for more automated testing in my company, which focus a lot on prototype and proof of concept systems. We currently use Google Test for unit testing. […]