C#

Mark Nischalke wrote:

The author really seemed to be saying that XP was the cure to all evils and nothing else could be used to write good software, no other methods used iterative delivery, etc.. His view also was that XP was an all or nothing thing, you either implemented in all, including paired programming, or it wouldn't work.

led mike wrote:

AM is an attitude, not a prescriptive process.

led mike wrote:

the horses mouth

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

It seems to me that it's only real purpose is to test discrete functions and classes

// old code:
void OpenTheDatabase()
{
   someSqlConnection.Open();
}

// new code:
void OpenTheDatabase(IDbConnection connection)
{
    connection.Open();
}

[Test]
public void OpenTheDatabaseDoesExactlyThat()
{
     DummyConnection connection = new DummyConnection();
     myDataLayer.OpenTheDatabase(connection);
    
     Assert.IsTrue(connection.Opened);
}

class DummyConnection : IDbConnection
{
    public bool Opened = false;
    
    public void Open()
    {
         opened = true;
    }
}

[Test]
public void OpenTheDatabaseDoesExactlyThat()
{
     using (rhinoMocks.Record())
     {
        IDbConnection fakeConnection = rhinoMocks.CreateMock<IDbConnection>();
        fakeConnection.Open();
     }

     using (rhinoMocks.Playback())
     {
        myDataLayer.OpenTheDatabase(connection);
     }
}

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

but what about adding nUnit to existing code?

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

TDD makes a lot more sense in theory because you have to have a good design up front in order to write applicable/viable tests