|Subject:||[Bug-gnu-arch] presidential colonel|
|Date:||Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:21:27 -0000|
|User-agent:||Thunderbird 22.214.171.124 (Windows/20060909)|
This will in the long run lead to SHORTER development time.
This action is now a PicoComponent, honouring constructor based dependency injection.
The good one is to keep the tests simple.
The package scope is even com. But claiming that I have written a book about Excel VBA is just plain hilarious. While this is a noble goal, it is not the only good reason to use mocks. Then what's more natural than moving the blog too?
This can incur some percieved overhead in the codebase, as the developer will now have to maintain both a CheeseDao and a HibernateCheeseDao.
It's kind of blurry to me how we decided to go for constructors, as we were both drunk when we started TDDing the first lines.
It is very hard to do properly until you pair with someone who knows how to do it. At least at the time of the invention of the antipattern.
The team's established practice is to extend the action and override methods that use objects that we want to mock out.
He got this weird _expression_ on his face when I asked, and I couldn't quite figure out whether he was excited or depressed. -And hopefully encourage the development team to do something about it before it becomes too big a hassle. I'm writing a Ruby on Rails application that renders a lot of objects in HTML. The test fixture should be simple and the assertions few.
This involved some simple reflection logic and was implemented in a couple of classes. Oh well, leave'em here then.
If you write your tests first, using mocks, you will end up with well-designed, nicely decoupled code.
I'm writing a Ruby on Rails application that renders a lot of objects in HTML.
It tends to open up and cripple the classes even more than they were before. You will catch bugs sooner rather than later. This is because you can't know whether your refactorings will break something without tests.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|