3 ms·
It sounds like your definition of TDD is regression tests + user acceptance test and I've already agreed that those are good things, we seem to just disagree th
by cjbgkagh 1y ago
It sounds like your definition of TDD is regression tests + user acceptance test and I've already agreed that those are good things, we seem to just disagree that is TDD is generally practiced in this manner - though you've only given me your personal anecdote. I made a generalization based on an observed pattern of behavior at a rather large scale, I will assume that you do TDD as is intended, but I already assumed individual counters to my generalization existed so your anecdote has changed nothing. The question remains, does the generalization hold for the general case. Like the USSR made a valiant effort to achieve true socialism Microsoft made a valiant effort to implement true TDD before giving up in 2014.
- pydry 1y agoThe definition is you write or amend a test before making the code change that makes it pass. That's it. It says nothing about the type of test you write. Personally i do it with literally every type of test that i write - acceptance, integration, unit. If you write a decent test, yes, TDD is always valuable. If you TDD with shitty tests, not so much, but that isnt really an issue with TDD.
- cjbgkagh 1y agoSounds like a “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
- Dylan16807 1y agoIt's not. "Doing C before doing Y is beneficial but requires you to be competent at C." is not a no true Scotsman.