3 ms·

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

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

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?