3 ms·

You wrote: > if you created 10 magnetised needles using the wrong process and getting the wrong result, then all 10 would agree with each other and your test p

You wrote: > if you created 10 magnetised needles using the wrong process and getting the wrong result, then all 10 would agree with each other and your test passes This suggests that you do think soemthing like this. Again, the way you test wheher you successfully magnetized a needle using another potentially magnetized needle is not by checking whether they "agree with each other" in the end application.

latexr 2y ago
> This suggests that you do think soemthing like this. Or it suggests they’re continuing the analogy (which isn’t perfect) to make a different point. > Again, the way you test (…) is not (…) Twice you’ve spent the majority of words in your post telling someone they’re wrong without explaining the correct methodology. That does not advance the conversation, it’s the equivalent of saying “nuh-uh” and leaving. If you disagree, it’s good form to explain why. It doesn’t take long to say the failed magnetisation would leave all needles pointing in disparate directions, not the same consistent wrong direction. Unless there’s something else in your test that is so strong and wrong that it causes that problem, in which case the analogy starts working again.
lelanthran 2y ago
> You wrote: >> if you created 10 magnetised needles using the wrong process and getting the wrong result, then all 10 would agree with each other and your test passes You snipped out the qualifier to the paragraph. The qualifier is important. Here's the full quote with the qualifier: > Using this analogy, if you created 10 magnetised needles using the wrong process and getting the wrong result, then all 10 would agree with each other and your test passes, but your needle is still broken. IOW, using this analogy for software development, all the products created with the wrong algorithm and/or process would all agree with each other. It's why I say you are missing the point. You're not creating a binary product that either exists or doesn't exist, like magnetism, so repeating the process as some sort of "test" is a broken way to test. It's also the most popular way to write tests: the tests are effectively moot because a pass does not indicate that the result is correct.

latexr 2y ago

> This suggests that you do think soemthing like this. Or it suggests they’re continuing the analogy (which isn’t perfect) to make a different point. > Again, the way you test (…) is not (…) Twice you’ve spent the majority of words in your post telling someone they’re wrong without explaining the correct methodology. That does not advance the conversation, it’s the equivalent of saying “nuh-uh” and leaving. If you disagree, it’s good form to explain why. It doesn’t take long to say the failed magnetisation would leave all needles pointing in disparate directions, not the same consistent wrong direction. Unless there’s something else in your test that is so strong and wrong that it causes that problem, in which case the analogy starts working again.

lelanthran 2y ago

> You wrote: >> if you created 10 magnetised needles using the wrong process and getting the wrong result, then all 10 would agree with each other and your test passes You snipped out the qualifier to the paragraph. The qualifier is important. Here's the full quote with the qualifier: > Using this analogy, if you created 10 magnetised needles using the wrong process and getting the wrong result, then all 10 would agree with each other and your test passes, but your needle is still broken. IOW, using this analogy for software development, all the products created with the wrong algorithm and/or process would all agree with each other. It's why I say you are missing the point. You're not creating a binary product that either exists or doesn't exist, like magnetism, so repeating the process as some sort of "test" is a broken way to test. It's also the most popular way to write tests: the tests are effectively moot because a pass does not indicate that the result is correct.