presidential colonel

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.

_______________________________________________
Bug-gnu-arch mailing list
Bug-gnu-arch-mXXj517/[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnu-arch