Re: A simple unit test framework

From:

James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++

Date:

6 May 2007 11:34:34 -0700

Message-ID:

<1178476474.489047.47760@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>

On May 6, 3:05 am, Gianni Mariani <gi3nos...@mariani.ws> wrote:

James Kanze wrote:

...

The latest trends are to write tests first which demonstrates the
requirements, then code (classes+methods).

The latest trend where? Certainly not in any company concerned
with good management, or quality software.

Look up TDD.

I'm familiar with the theory. Regretfully, it doesn't work out
in practice.

In this case you will not
have to do a coverage, but it is a plus. This way, the code you write
will be minimal and easier to understand and maintain.

And will not necessarily meet requirements, or even be useful.

Actually, it does meet the requirements by definition since the test
case demonstrates how the requirements should be met.

Bullshit. I've seen just too many cases of code which is wrong,
but for which no test suite is capable of reliably triggering
the errors.

See my "log"ging example.

You mean where you confused the mathematical function "log()"
with a function used to log error messages?

--
James Kanze (Gabi Software) email: james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place S=E9mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'=C9cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34