Re: What I hate about *Unit frameworks.

Perl was my first professional language. I am not afraid of monkey
patching.

A hammer is a useful tool. Please refrain from hitting yourself with it.


On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 5:03 PM, George Dinwiddie <[email protected]>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Adam,
>
>
> On 5/2/13 7:15 PM, Adam Sroka wrote:
> > Hi George:
> >
> > That makes sense, but you can do the same thing to yourself with mocks.
> > That's why you have to make sure you write microtests for both sides of
> the
> > relationship and cover the same conditions (I think J.B. calls them
> > "contract tests.")
>
> No, with monkey patching you're often messing up *library code* to the
> detriment of other tests.
>
>
> >
> > I only think monkey patching is bad when you violate the implied
> interface,
> > or when you go way down in the inheritance hierarchy and muck with things
> > that could have wide ranging effects (Both of which are smells in dynamic
> > languages anyway.) But, if you were actually doing TDD something would go
> > red when you did either of those things, right?
>
> Maybe. Or maybe your monkey patching makes other tests work, but the app
> doesn't when it's in production and the library hasn't been monkey-patched.
>
> - George
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 7:46 AM, George Dinwiddie <
> [email protected]>wrote:
> >
> >> **
>
> >>
> >>
> >> Adam,
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/1/13 11:25 PM, Adam Sroka wrote:
> >>> Maybe I'm just dense, but: what is it about this that is particular to
> >> TDD?
> >>> Seems to me that monkey patching without tests is *fuck all* more
> >> dangerous
> >>> than writing a test, making it pass in the simplest way possible, and
> >> then
> >>> improving the design. What am I missing???
> >>
> >> Monkey patching is a common method to create testing seams, even by
> >> people who would not use monkey patching in the deliverable system code.
> >> It's a quick-and-dirty way of mocking using the real objects.
> >>
> >> - George
> >>
> >>
> >>> On May 1, 2013 8:12 PM, "John Roth" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> **
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 5/1/13 7:12 AM, David Stanek wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Angel Java Lopez
> >>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:ajlopez2000%40gmail.com>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> John, usually I don't find the case "this test corrupts that test",
> >>>>> and I
> >>>>>> wrote thousands of tests.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Any example/case?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've seen this in Python tests where developers monkey-patch things
> and
> >>>>> forget to set them back or otherwise muck with global state. This has
> >>>> been
> >>>>> the result of design issues.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Snort. This is a continuing issue for the Python developers as well.
> >>>>
> >>>> John Roth
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> * George Dinwiddie * http://blog.gdinwiddie.com
> Software Development http://www.idiacomputing.com
> Consultant and Coach http://www.agilemaryland.org
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>  
>


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



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/testdrivendevelopment/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/testdrivendevelopment/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/