Browse by Tags

• BDD
• Behavior-Driven Development
• Legacy Code
• MonoRail
• PabloTV
• Patterns
• Refactoring
• Rhino Mocks
• Testing
• Tools

• Three simple Rhino Mocks rules

  In previous versions of Rhino Mocks, the Record/Replay model was the only way to create and verify mocks.  You would have an area that set up expectations in a record mode, then the replay mode would verify your expectations.  What was really... Posted Oct 05 2008, 10:13 PM by bogardj with | with 10 comment(s) Filed under: TDD, Rhino Mocks

• A TDD investment addendum

  I completely left out one very important tip in my top 10 tips to get a return on your TDD investment : Take advantage of pair-programming . Pair programming is a great teaching device, as it lets two people go back and forth, working on a problem. By... Posted Sep 22 2008, 11:38 PM by bogardj with | with 2 comment(s) Filed under: TDD

• Ten tips to maximize the return on your TDD investment

  Paul Cowen presented an interesting personal observation of using TDD on the ALT.NET mailing list, under the title " TDD + effort != return ". The implication being that doing TDD requires extra work during development, extra work in training... Posted Sep 21 2008, 10:00 PM by bogardj with | with 14 comment(s) Filed under: TDD

• Interfaces and isolation

  Roy Osherove has suggested a new name for mocks, fakes, stubs or any test double: Isolation . True, the myriad of test double names can muddy the language, and Meszaros' suggested name of "test double" still confuses people that don't... Posted Sep 20 2008, 04:29 PM by bogardj with | with 11 comment(s) Filed under: TDD

• TDD design trade-offs and junk food

  Tony Rasa recently talked about design trade-offs when doing TDD: When “doing TDD,” we consciously make design trade-offs to favor testability. ... we end up with a lot of single-implementation interfaces because of testability concerns and from weaknesses... Posted Sep 18 2008, 07:56 PM by bogardj with | with 26 comment(s) Filed under: TDD

• Quality and code coverage

  It's an age-old question: should our team's goal be 100% coverage? A valid question, but one I've never much cared about in practice. The idea is that the team, all practicing TDD, should dutifully measure and add unit tests until they reach... Posted Sep 09 2008, 07:59 AM by bogardj with | with 9 comment(s) Filed under: Testing, TDD

• PabloTV: Eliminating static dependencies screencast

  Nature abhors a vacuum. It turns out she also abhors static dependencies (I have my sources). Static dependencies are the modern-day globals, often exposed through classes named "Helper". I've certainly been guilty of overusing static dependencies... Posted May 06 2008, 07:24 AM by bogardj with | with 11 comment(s) Filed under: Legacy Code, Refactoring, BDD, TDD, PabloTV

• Should you TDD when flying solo?

  A couple of weeks ago a question came up on the ALT.NET message board : Does TDD make sense when you're the only developer in your company? To me, this is akin to the following questions: Is quality important? Is maintainability important? Is design... Posted Apr 22 2008, 08:39 PM by bogardj with | with 13 comment(s) Filed under: TDD

• Auto-mocking container pitfalls?

  I'm taking a closer look at the auto-mocking container idea, specifically as we're including it in the upcoming release of NBehave. I'm a little wary of prolonged use, but wanted to get some feedback (it's also on the ALT.NET message board... Posted Apr 21 2008, 07:57 PM by bogardj with | with 3 comment(s) Filed under: Tools, TDD

• Review - xUnit Test Patterns

  I consider one of the measures of quality of a book to be the number of personal assumptions challenged by its material. To that point, Gerard Meszaros' xUnit Test Patterns did not disappoint. Perhaps the biggest assumption was a dogmatic view of... Posted Mar 16 2008, 10:15 PM by bogardj with | with 6 comment(s) Filed under: TDD

• Clearing up the Mock confusion

  There's some bad blood concerning Mocks, and a lot of it rightfully so. Because of popular mocking frameworks, the name "Mock" has become interchangeable for "Test Double". In Texas, we ask for a Kleenex, not a tissue, and a Coke... Posted Mar 13 2008, 09:57 PM by bogardj with | with 4 comment(s) Filed under: TDD

• Advanced mocking: mocks and stubs

  Test Spies can help us verify the indirect outputs of a system under test. If an OrderProcessor needs to send an email, we don't want that test sending real emails, so we set up a Test Spy to capture that indirect output so we can verify it inside... Posted Mar 12 2008, 10:16 PM by bogardj with | with 5 comment(s) Filed under: TDD

• The many faces of ExpectedException

  I'm not a fan of the style most xUnit frameworks suggest for verifying exceptions. After seeing the problems with using an attribute to perform assertions, many frameworks have come up with their own way of their own way of doing it. Outside using... Posted Mar 10 2008, 10:25 PM by bogardj with | with 4 comment(s) Filed under: TDD

• Advanced mocking: anonymous test spy

  When practicing TDD, I create interfaces to abstract away the ugly stuff, like databases, file I/O, web service calls, email messages, and other external systems. I can run tests now that don't have to interact with real implementations of these external... Posted Mar 06 2008, 10:43 PM by bogardj with | with 24 comment(s) Filed under: Testing, TDD

• Advanced mocking: auto-interaction testing

  When dealing with legacy systems or those not designed with specific testability scenarios in mind, you have to test your changes in non-traditional means. In normal mocking (or test double ) scenarios, you have some kind of external dependency that you... Posted Mar 05 2008, 09:44 PM by bogardj with | with 7 comment(s) Filed under: Legacy Code, Testing, TDD