Re: Unit tests and parameter validation
Matteo Vaccari <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.programming.test-driven-development |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CADwhwbPWYo4OcGigt9_o7LxbgWLXuxrPi6stt=U9nELiDM9Y_Q@mail.gmail.com> |
Simply because you are assuming, as you develop your "inside" objects, that they will provide the right services to the "outside" objects that you will develop later. They might, or they might not, in which case you'll have to do some rework. On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Eb <[email protected]> wrote: > > > How so? > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Michal Svoboda <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ** >> >> >> Eb wrote: >> > Curious how if this changes if one develops inside out. >> >> Your probability increases that you develop the wrong thing. :) >> >> On the original point, if your guards are mostly about null, then you >> can annotate your stuff with @Nonnull (or similar if your language >> supports it). This then makes the contract more like a strong type >> system and violations can be likely caught by static analysis tools. >> >> Michal >> >> > > > -- > blog: http://eikonne.wordpress.com > twitter: @eikonne > > > >