WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™)
-
@boomzilla wrong. You meant what he said. Just admit you tdd wrong, okay? And promise never to learn.
-
@boomzilla said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@Gąska said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@boomzilla just so we're on the same page - we're still talking about TDD by hand vs. not by hand? And you're saying that TDD not by hand means that it is enforced by a semi-automated tool that enough tests exist?
Oh FFS.
I'm talking about how having good tools like a central VCS and CI promote the visibility of activities which makes it easier to keep everyone on track.
Then I'm still waiting for an explanation what "TDD by hand" looks like and how it's different from TDD not by hand.
-
@Gąska said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@boomzilla said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@Gąska said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@boomzilla just so we're on the same page - we're still talking about TDD by hand vs. not by hand? And you're saying that TDD not by hand means that it is enforced by a semi-automated tool that enough tests exist?
Oh FFS.
I'm talking about how having good tools like a central VCS and CI promote the visibility of activities which makes it easier to keep everyone on track.
Then I'm still waiting for an explanation what "TDD by hand" looks like and how it's different from TDD not by hand.
So...you cannot imagine not having those tools? What else could this question of yours possibly mean?
Oh, I get it, you're still hyperfocused on the minutiae of writing tests. Sorry, that's a personal problem and I am quite sure that I cannot help you with it.
-
@boomzilla said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@Gąska said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@boomzilla said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@Gąska said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@boomzilla just so we're on the same page - we're still talking about TDD by hand vs. not by hand? And you're saying that TDD not by hand means that it is enforced by a semi-automated tool that enough tests exist?
Oh FFS.
I'm talking about how having good tools like a central VCS and CI promote the visibility of activities which makes it easier to keep everyone on track.
Then I'm still waiting for an explanation what "TDD by hand" looks like and how it's different from TDD not by hand.
So...you cannot imagine not having those tools?
So are or aren't those tools what makes TDD "not by hand"? You're contradicting yourself every other post.
Just say what you mean and stop with those dumb rhetorical questions.
-
@Gąska said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@boomzilla said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@Gąska said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@boomzilla said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@Gąska said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@boomzilla just so we're on the same page - we're still talking about TDD by hand vs. not by hand? And you're saying that TDD not by hand means that it is enforced by a semi-automated tool that enough tests exist?
Oh FFS.
I'm talking about how having good tools like a central VCS and CI promote the visibility of activities which makes it easier to keep everyone on track.
Then I'm still waiting for an explanation what "TDD by hand" looks like and how it's different from TDD not by hand.
So...you cannot imagine not having those tools?
So are or aren't those tools what makes TDD "not by hand"? You're contradicting yourself every other post.
Huh? What contradictions?
Just say what you mean and stop with those dumb rhetorical questions.
What I mean is that you're hyperfocused on some detail that caught your dickweed fancy and are being dumb.
-
@boomzilla which detail? I'm done guessing what you mean.
-
@Gąska said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@boomzilla which detail? I'm done guessing what you mean.
I've only pointed it out in multiple posts. You only had to read them.
Based on your posts seem to be of the opinion that enforcing TDD practices in an organization is of no help in actually doing TDD.
But then, weird claims of contradictions and having to guess about stuff tells me that you're not all here today, so.
-
@boomzilla said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
Based on your posts seem to be of the opinion that enforcing TDD practices in an organization is of no help in actually doing TDD.
You're wrong. If there's anything I'm hung up on, it's that @GuyWhoKilledBear used a phrase "TDD by hand" and I have no idea what that entails or how that differs from other kinds of TDD.
Do you know what he meant by "TDD by hand"? If yes, can you explain to me what he meant by "TDD by hand"? That's all I've been asking about for the last 6 posts.
-
@Gąska said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@boomzilla said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
Based on your posts seem to be of the opinion that enforcing TDD practices in an organization is of no help in actually doing TDD.
You're wrong. If there's anything I'm hung up on, it's that @GuyWhoKilledBear used a phrase "TDD by hand" and I have no idea what that entails or how that differs from other kinds of TDD.
I'm baffled by this. Did you read only that phrase in his post or something?
Do you know what he meant by "TDD by hand"? If yes, can you explain to me what he meant by "TDD by hand"? That's all I've been asking about for the last 6 posts.
This is truly retarded. Take yes for an answer.
-
@boomzilla yes to both, or just the first one?
-
@Gąska said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@boomzilla yes to both, or just the first one?
Sure. Some people have even read my previous posts and thereby seen the explanation!
-
@boomzilla well, you also apparently repeated that I'm correct multiple times, without ever using the word "correct" or "right" or any synonym of those anywhere in the entire thread. So while it's possible some other forum members have mind reading capabilities or special decoder rings that reveal hidden messages, I'm not one of them.
So please, tell me - without rhetorical questions, without "oh FFS"s, just a straight forward answer. What is the difference between "TDD by hand" and "not by hand"? Is it about tools that report the number of tests and ensure all of them pass?
-
@Gąska it's from conflating of test supported development with test driven development due to a lack of understanding of the latter. I am having fun watching the crux of the matter roll around. It's like hungry hungry hippos.
-
@Gąska said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
TDD is methodology
TDD leads to much Yagni without much discipline.
In theory it works, but in practice, our toolscape is not supportive of true TDD. Only barely passably supportive with far too much effort.
To me, it's equivalent to trying to code LISP in an excel spreadsheet, by installing an extension that has a LISP => Visual Basic compiler.
As an example.
A hypothetical tool that is designed for TDD would start a project with Test code section, then you select a test and have an ability to create an implementation, much like one using DI would start with an interface.
Then you have the ability to string implementations together.
That would encourage and create an environment were TDD would not encourage YAGNI implementations, and would not require so much effort.
We're one step closer with DI built in.
The whole point of this is to say, yeah tools DO matter.
Because you'll be damned to incorporate a methodology correctly, without a proper tool.I mean, we can write code in MS Paint, and use an OCD compiler. But have fun with that.
-
@xaade you have no fucking clue what TDD is
-
@Gribnit said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@xaade you have no fucking clue what TDD is
Write a test that tests a condition/IO/etc. It will obviously fail because the implementation does not match. Change the implementation so that it matches.
If you're referring to anything beyond that simplicity, it's cultural and tacked onto the original intent of TDD.
Any tool that encourages TDD would facilitate this. So far, they don't.
-
@xaade so how do those tests drive the development in that still not remotely useful interpretation, oh
?That's unit testing. That's not TDD. Update your resume.
-
@Gribnit said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@xaade so how do those tests drive the development in that still not remotely useful interpretation, oh
?You're making no sense.
They drive the development, because you make the test first. How is this a difficult thing?
-
@xaade so now it's TDD. Check your description of unit testing above, for the word first, or add it.
-
@Gribnit said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@xaade so now it's TDD. Check your description of unit testing above, for the word first, or add it.
Any kind of tool that would facilitate TDD would have you write a test, then select the implementation tested and open up to implement.
Much like you can write an interface, and then derive from the interface and the tool gives you an option to implement.
I don't see why I need to say "FIRST" in order for you to understand that.
-
@xaade I ignore most of what you write. Your intent is now clearer, thanks!
-
@Gribnit said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@xaade I ignore most of what you write. Your intent is now clearer, thanks!
Then DON'T REPLY.
-
@xaade said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@Gribnit said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@xaade I ignore most of what you write. Your intent is now clearer, thanks!
Then DON'T REPLY.
Have you actually ever tried this?
-
@xaade said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
You're making no sense.
Duh. It's Gribnit.
-
@loopback0 said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@xaade said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
You're making no sense.
Duh. It's Gribnit.
Hey, at least I can tell the difference between source and test folders.
-
@xaade said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
You're making no sense.
I see you've met our resident nitwit.
-
@Gribnit said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@loopback0 said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@xaade said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
You're making no sense.
Duh. It's Gribnit.
Hey, at least I can tell the difference between source and test folders.
Weird flex but OK
-
@loopback0 said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@Gribnit said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@loopback0 said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@xaade said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
You're making no sense.
Duh. It's Gribnit.
Hey, at least I can tell the difference between source and test folders.
Weird flex but OK
It's relevant. I promise.
-
@Gąska said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
So please, tell me - without rhetorical questions, without "oh FFS"s, just a straight forward answer. What is the difference between "TDD by hand" and "not by hand"? Is it about tools that report the number of tests and ensure all of them pass?
The context was "What service is provided by a sysadmin of a CI server that provides TDD features?"
More specifically, the context was "Is the service that sysadmin provides 'software development' or is it something else?" The answer to the specific question is, "No, that sysadmin is not a software developer. He does something else."
"TDD by hand" is related to the broader question though. If you assume the existence of a CI tool with testing features, "TDD by hand" entails actually typing out your tests N times, where N is the number of systems that need access to your tests. In my example from before, the developer, the CI tool, and the management dashboard all need access to the tests, so you'd have to write them three times. (N=3). "Tool assisted TDD" takes tests written for one purpose and makes them available for the other purposes, so ideally you only have to physically write the tests one time.
If you don't assume the existence of a CI tool or other tools that consume the TDD-generated tests, N could very easily equal 1, in which case "TDD by hand" and "Tool assisted TDD" are exactly equivalent.
But since we're talking about what to put in a job solicitation when you want to hire a sysadmin for a CI server, I think the existence of a CI server is a fair assumption.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear that's BDD or CDD not TDD. This is like watching a tiltawhirl.
-
This post is deleted!
-
Didn't we already have one of these threads? I'm sure I've seen @Gąska having a shouting match with a handful of others about TDD before.
-
@Carnage said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
Didn't we already have one of these threads? I'm sure I've seen @Gąska having a shouting match with a handful of others about TDD before.
That was here, just now.
-
@Carnage said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
Didn't we already have one of these threads? I'm sure I've seen @Gąska having a shouting match with a handful of others about TDD before.
That's exactly what I'm talking about - the other topic was about unit tests, not TDD, and that people conflate the two is exactly the problem.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
If you assume the existence of a CI tool with testing features
Two things:
- Testing != TDD, that's why I started this thread in the first place.
- If you were to say "CI tool with TDD features" instead, then I'm saying the assumption is always wrong because there are no features a CI tool can have that could possibly be classified as TDD, simply because CI happens too late to have any impact on the TDD process.
And regardless of all the above, CI is still very useful on its own, while usefulness of TDD is exactly zero. I'm just ranting about terminology.
-
@Gąska said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@Carnage said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
Didn't we already have one of these threads? I'm sure I've seen @Gąska having a shouting match with a handful of others about TDD before.
That's exactly what I'm talking about - the other topic was about unit tests, not TDD, and that people conflate the two is exactly the problem.
No I mean, haven't this very discussion about the definition of TDD happened before, like months ago?
-
@Carnage if we did, I don't remember that.
-
@Gąska said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@Carnage if we did, I don't remember that.
But you were there.
-
@xaade said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
You're making no sense.
I see you've met Gribnit.
Edit wow,
x2
-
@Gąska said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
CI happens too late to have any impact on the TDD process
That sounds like something connected to your workflow, not to either CI or TDD.
-
@xaade said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
an OCD compiler
Then WDTWTF would be one of the most productive coding environments.
Filed under: I think you meant OCR, meta
-
@dkf said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@Gąska said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
CI happens too late to have any impact on the TDD process
That sounds like something connected to your workflow, not to either CI or TDD.
Excuse me for channeling
but I guess that TDD is the workflow.
-
@Gribnit said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
actually, don't clarify, it's better this way.
That should be your signature
-
@Gąska said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@boomzilla well, you also apparently repeated that I'm correct multiple times, without ever using the word "correct" or "right" or any synonym of those anywhere in the entire thread.
So please, tell me - without rhetorical questions, without "oh FFS"s, just a straight forward answer. What is the difference between "TDD by hand" and "not by hand"? Is it about tools that report the number of tests and ensure all of them pass?
Read the quote in your OP. It's right there.
-
@boomzilla so I guess when you said "sure", you actually meant no, you're not going to explain it. And you blame me for bad communication.
-
@dkf said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@Gąska said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
CI happens too late to have any impact on the TDD process
That sounds like something connected to your workflow, not to either CI or TDD.
TDD process ends when you commit. CI process starts after you commit. There's simply no point in time the two could ever interact with each other.
-
@Gąska said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
TDD process ends when you commit. CI process starts after you commit. There's simply no point in time the two could ever interact with each other.
Oh, are you one of these people who likes a linear timeline? That's Different™.
-
@Gąska close, but. Verification tools run during CI can measure test coverage and make estimations based on timestamps as to where TDD was likely to have been followed.
-
@dkf For a second I was worried you may have some kind of point and I might be missing something. But turns out you were just shitposting.
-
@Gąska said in WRITING TESTS IS NOT TDD!!!!!!!!!! (Re: The Official Funny Stuff Thread™):
@boomzilla so I guess when you said "sure", you actually meant no, you're not going to explain it.
Since you haven't read any previous ones, I'm not sure why you think I'd believe you that you'd read it again.
And you blame me for bad communication.
Yep.
