4 ms·

Actually no, the "unit" in unit tests is about isolation: the test can be executed as an independent unit, not about a unit of code (single class/method). If yo

Actually no, the "unit" in unit tests is about isolation: the test can be executed as an independent unit, not about a unit of code (single class/method). If you search around, the leading experts who popularized unit tests described it as such. It is perfectly fine to test multiple classes as a unit, in fact you probably already do so, as I would be extremely surprised if you mock your string class in all your unit tests.

mattmanser 3y ago
If you have to 'search around' for your definition and make a dubious appeal to authority without citing any of those experts, perhaps you need to wonder if it's your definition that's wrong.
- vouwfietsman 3y ago
  It was not my intention to present you with such a major challenge, my deepest apologies. https://martinfowler.com/bliki/UnitTest.html https://martinfowler.com/bliki/UnitTest.html Martin Fowler Although I start with the notion of the unit being a class, I often take a bunch of closely related classes and treat them as a single unit. https://medium.com/@_ericelliott/i-use-the-well-known-definitions-of-unit-tests-established-by-kent-beck-in-his-seminal-2002-book-792a2c958bd8 https://medium.com/@_ericelliott/i-use-the-well-known-defini... Kent Beck Unit tests test individual units (modules, functions, classes) in isolation from the rest of the program
  - mattmanser 3y ago
    Although I start with the notion of the unit being a class... Such great evidence.
    - vouwfietsman 3y ago
      Further in the article he goes over exactly why he feels that its allowed to both test a single class or multiple at once, going as far to give a name to them: solitary vs sociable unit tests. Then, he goes on to, and let me emphasize this, defend against the criticism that other people make that this type of test is not a unit test. (sound familiar?): Indeed using sociable unit tests was one of the reasons we were criticized for our use of the term "unit testing". I think that the term "unit testing" is appropriate because these tests are tests of the behavior of a single unit. We write the tests assuming everything other than that unit is working correctly. I'm not sure how thoroughly you're looking to be refuted here but I feel I can't quite do a better job. Funny thing is, this is not even a very deep insight: the answer to nearly any question in software design can be boiled down to: it depends. This discussion is just the unit-test rendition of "it depends". Why are you so hell bent on having it exactly one way?

mattmanser 3y ago

If you have to 'search around' for your definition and make a dubious appeal to authority without citing any of those experts, perhaps you need to wonder if it's your definition that's wrong.

vouwfietsman 3y ago
It was not my intention to present you with such a major challenge, my deepest apologies. https://martinfowler.com/bliki/UnitTest.html https://martinfowler.com/bliki/UnitTest.html Martin Fowler Although I start with the notion of the unit being a class, I often take a bunch of closely related classes and treat them as a single unit. https://medium.com/@_ericelliott/i-use-the-well-known-definitions-of-unit-tests-established-by-kent-beck-in-his-seminal-2002-book-792a2c958bd8 https://medium.com/@_ericelliott/i-use-the-well-known-defini... Kent Beck Unit tests test individual units (modules, functions, classes) in isolation from the rest of the program
- mattmanser 3y ago
  Although I start with the notion of the unit being a class... Such great evidence.
  - vouwfietsman 3y ago
    Further in the article he goes over exactly why he feels that its allowed to both test a single class or multiple at once, going as far to give a name to them: solitary vs sociable unit tests. Then, he goes on to, and let me emphasize this, defend against the criticism that other people make that this type of test is not a unit test. (sound familiar?): Indeed using sociable unit tests was one of the reasons we were criticized for our use of the term "unit testing". I think that the term "unit testing" is appropriate because these tests are tests of the behavior of a single unit. We write the tests assuming everything other than that unit is working correctly. I'm not sure how thoroughly you're looking to be refuted here but I feel I can't quite do a better job. Funny thing is, this is not even a very deep insight: the answer to nearly any question in software design can be boiled down to: it depends. This discussion is just the unit-test rendition of "it depends". Why are you so hell bent on having it exactly one way?