Re: Test Driving WPF
Steven Gordon <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.programming.test-driven-development |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAF7qo6VedFHW3tSZdJG5j1PTD8ckg9LpGiy1SG+hCdvt1HjRCA@mail.gmail.com> |
It's software - of course, things can go wrong, even when there is 100% test coverage. Tests cannot fully specify/verify the usability of GUI by humans, so manual testing of the GUI is necessary anyway. Just keep the GUI as thin as possible so that the logic and business rules are being specified/verified as well as possible, On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Charlie Poole <[email protected]>wrote: > > > So I guess nothing can go wrong! :-) > > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Steven Gordon <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> A benefit of Avi's approach is that it highly encourages a thin GUI that >> delegates as much as possible to directly testable code that reside in >> other DLLs, which we all know results in a better, more adaptable >> architecture. >> >> Maybe, not being able to directly unit testing is ultimately not such a >> bad thing. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Avi Kessner <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> The general rule we have is to test the model and the controls that >>> dictate the changes to the UI, but the UI itself can't be tested with unit >>> tests. Alternatively, you can try to take screen shots and try to do jpg >>> comparisons (but I don't recommend it) >>> >>> brought to you by the letters A, V, and I >>> and the number 47 >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Alan Baljeu <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm kind of new to WPF and trying to TDD an application that uses it. >>>> I'm a little frustrated that Microsoft's default program architecture >>>> still isn't TDD friendly. It creates an application project and adds a >>>> window and an app level resource dictionary, none of which can be tested >>>> because a test system requires a DLL it can load. But if I create a new >>>> DLL, it loses connection to the base resources because that's in the exe >>>> and not available in testing. >>>> >>>> So the architecture seems wrong, and I don't know what's a more ideal >>>> way to proceed. Or, is there something I'm missing about testing UI code. >>>> >>>> Alan Baljeu >>>> >>>> >>> >> > >