Re: [testdrivendevelopment] "bottom-up" TDD and common behaviors

"Steve Gordon" <[email protected]> Mon, 2 Dec 2019 12:48:24 -0700
Newsgroups gmane.comp.programming.test-driven-development
Message-ID <CAF7qo6Wq7ymORcvwJT5_-tUAuW4FUO=Cmf_QAoc-TJadtJcZpg@mail.gmail.com>
--0000000000007abf610598bddd48
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

What motivates implementing a setter method under TDD unless there is a
test that requires it to exist and work?  Extra tests would only be
required if we also need to implement is<X>Modifiable() for some field X.

On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 12:26 PM Ron Jeffries <[email protected]>
wrote:

> If we're gonna be like that, wouldn't you need a test for every modifiable
> field? :)
>
> On Dec 2, 2019, at 11:16 AM, Steve Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Just because an object has a method implemented to "know" whether or not a
> field is modifiable does not mean that that method is correctly
> implemented.  If there is such a method, you would still have to have at
> least two tests that verifies returns true only when that field is actually
> modifiable and false only when it is not.
>
> Unless the application itself needs such a method, I would have a test
> that gets the fields value, sets it to a different value, and gets the
> field value to verify it changes.
>
>
>
> Ron Jeffries
> ronjeffries.com
> Master your instrument, master the music, then forget all that shit and
> just play. -- Charlie Parker
>
> 
>
>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#35797): https://groups.io/g/testdrivendevelopment/message/35797
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/64491946/3268755
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/testdrivendevelopment/leave/6156322/744556386/xyzzy  [[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


--0000000000007abf610598bddd48
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">What motivates implementing a setter method under TDD unle=
ss there is a test that requires it to exist and work?=C2=A0 Extra tests wo=
uld only be required if we also need to implement is&lt;X&gt;Modifiable() f=
or some field X.</div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=
=
=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 12:26 PM Ron Jeffries &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>&gt; wrot=
e:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0=
.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D=
"overflow-wrap: break-word;">If we&#39;re gonna be like that, wouldn&#39;t =
you need a test for every modifiable field? :)<br><div><br><blockquote type=
=
=3D"cite"><div>On Dec 2, 2019, at 11:16 AM, Steve Gordon &lt;<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>&gt; w=
rote:</div><br><div><span style=3D"font-family:ArialMT;font-size:18px;font-=
style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:nor=
mal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal=
;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none;float:none;display:inline">Just beca=
use an object has a method implemented to &quot;know&quot; whether or not a=
 field is modifiable=C2=A0does not mean that that method is correctly imple=
mented.=C2=A0 If there is such a method, you would still have to have at le=
ast two tests that verifies returns true only when that field is actually m=
odifiable and false only when it is not.=C2=A0=C2=A0</span><div style=3D"fo=
nt-family:ArialMT;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal=
;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;=
text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:non=
e"><br></div><div style=3D"font-family:ArialMT;font-size:18px;font-style:no=
rmal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text=
-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-sp=
acing:0px;text-decoration:none">Unless the application itself needs such a =
method, I would have a test that gets the fields value, sets it to a differ=
ent value, and gets the field value to verify it changes.</div></div></bloc=
kquote></div><br><div>
<div style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;fon=
t-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:norma=
l;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:n=
ormal;word-spacing:0px"><div><div><br>Ron Jeffries</div><div><a href=3D"htt=
p://ronjeffries.com" target=3D"_blank">ronjeffries.com</a><br>Master your i=
nstrument, master the music, then forget all that shit and just play. -- Ch=
arlie Parker</div></div></div>

</div>
<br></div>


<p></p><p></p></blockquote></div>

<div width=3D"1" style=3D"color:white;clear:both">_._,_._,_</div>
<hr>
Groups.io Links:<p>

You receive all messages sent to this group.


<p>

<a target=3D"_blank" href=3D"https://groups.io/g/testdrivendevelopment/mes=
sage/35797">View/Reply Online (#35797)</a> |


  <a target=3D"_blank" href=3D"mailto:[email protected]?subj=
ect=3DRe:%20Re%3A%20%5Btestdrivendevelopment%5D%20%22bottom-up%22%20TDD%20a=
nd%20common%20behaviors">Reply To Group</a>
  
    | <a target=3D"_blank" href=3D"mailto:[email protected]?subject=3DP=
rivate:%20Re:%20Re%3A%20%5Btestdrivendevelopment%5D%20%22bottom-up%22%20TDD=
%20and%20common%20behaviors">Reply To Sender</a>
  


|


  
    <a target=3D"_blank" href=3D"https://groups.io/mt/64491946/3268755">Mu=
te This Topic</a>
  

| <a href=3D"https://groups.io/g/testdrivendevelopment/post">New Topic</a>=
<br>



<br>

<a href=3D"https://groups.io/g/testdrivendevelopment/editsub/3268755">Your=
 Subscription</a> |
<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">Contact Group Own=
er</a> |

<a href=3D"https://groups.io/g/testdrivendevelopment/leave/6156322/7445563=
86/xyzzy">Unsubscribe</a>

 [[email protected]]<br>
<div width=3D"1" style=3D"color:white;clear:both">_._,_._,_</div>


--0000000000007abf610598bddd48--