|
Super Lloyd wrote: it seems like you are testing the implementation more than the behavior!
Correct. Behavior relies on implementation. 
Super Lloyd wrote: making it hard to implement thing a different way!...
Not necessarily. If I change the implementation of a function, it's behavior should still be the same -- given the same inputs, I get the same outputs as before the change.
When you refer to testing the implementation, yes, there is a close coupling between a test and its implementation -- it pretty much needs to be that way, it doesn't matter if you're testing private functions or public ones.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
At least in case of .Net:
If you really want to keep some methods away from public but still want to test them with unit tests consider making them internal instead of private. You can then set an assembly attribute to make them visible to your test project (InternalsVisibleToAttribute[^])
Or if you really absolutely want to test private methods: Noone stops you from using reflection and doing just that. 
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm.... grcchh... I have to disagree - not necessarily with the result, but with the reasoning.
Now there are a lot of assumptions going into how the public interface is implemented. Yet, at the general level, the core responsibility of a unit test is to verify observable behavior of a functional unit.
This seems pretty straightforward to me, since
- Other components relying on it will do so through the public interface.
- The public interface resembles more or less closely the specification of the functional unit.
- A significant element of the observable bahavior that requires testing is preserving invariants - something your privates usually don't do
So the question is not should we test public or private, but is testing the public interface sufficient?.
I can imagine quite some scenarios where this is not:
- You are not exposing sufficient state to test for invariants.
In some cases that's simply missing from the interface (e.g. a SetCapacity without GetCapacity), but I concede there are cases where this state wouldn't need to be public except for tests. - Performance guarantees like "amortized O(1)" are hard to test for.
I've worked around this in some cases by e.g. exposing "cache stats" or "performance stats" in the public interface (which tend to end up in the final app diagnostic anyway). But again, I concede there's not always a reasonable solution. - You've built a complex interface ("the car") entirely of private elements ("the engine" etc.) that are not individually testable.
As much as I detest the very idea of Test Driven Design (*shudder*), I would concede that automated testability is a relevant stake in the architecture, so - unless there's unjustifiable burden on other stakes - "the engine" should be testable as well. - While having a public interface, the sub component is private in its entirety, thus the interface is not available form the outside for testing.
My own conclusion is: the public interface is the primary interface to be tested. If tests require access to privates, at least consider if the public interface is complete and/or a sub component should be isolated for testability. Then, remember my personal motto of "Test what is easy to test, you won't catch everything anyway". After that, there's little privates to be tested left, anyway, which is sufficiently rare to make test-only functionality accessable within the public signature.
|
|
|
|
|
I hate duck-typing and its typeless parameters and function returns.
I despise silent exits, not even a little whimper of "$foobar" not defined.
I loathe $this->. What moron language designer required this construct?
I detest prefixing variables with "$", it harks back to the days of BASIC ass$="you are".
I piss on your brace style if ( condition ) {
Who came up with this POC language and why was (or is it still) all the rage? I understand WordPress uses PHP? 
If you haven't guessed, I'm having to do some PHP programming.
[edit]Oh, and I would like to add to this rant the lack of any concept of OOD even though classes are supported. It's been a looong time since I've had to read through methods like sqlsrv_[whatever] and realize their not wrapped in a class. So guess what I did?
Which of course promotes non-OOD spaghetti code practices, which is what I'm fixing right now. It's a amazing to me how people can f**** up less than 500 lines of code into an untestable morass of garbage.
[/edit]
Marc
modified 6-Oct-14 16:15pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I think PHP has now been surpassed by JavaScript in most categories, especially the awards for the least maintainable code, most annoying syntax and greatest error potential. Only in the category 'Most Annoying Community' there are some close comptitors (Java and VB).
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
|
|
|
|
|
You're having the same motive as I had, when I wrote Why Use ASP.NET for Web Development[^] but just a little bit more aggression. 
Favourite line: Throw me to them wolves and close the gate up. I am afraid of what will happen to them wolves - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Afzaal Ahmad Zeeshan wrote: You're having the same motive as I had,
I like your PHP example adding two integers.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: I like your PHP example adding two integers.
Loose types are perfect for the web though. His example is just his bias. I could give tons more examples where PHP is much much much more cleaner than C# when converting types, which a lot of programs have to deal with, especially if using more than one input or output stream (like the web).
Would I prefer a strong type in PHP? I would. Is it nearly as big a deal as people that never use PHP make it out to be? Not at all. In years of using PHP I've only had a handful of issues arise from loose types.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
When you wrote "silent exits" I thought you were ranting about Ruby for a moment.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: When you wrote "silent exits" I thought you were ranting about Ruby for a moment.
 Touche.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Aw, quit "Graus"ing about it...
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
So now the poor man has his own verb?
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I realize this is just a good old fashioned rant, but most of your gripes have to do with not knowing the language man. Plain and simple. Now, PHP is not the most modern language in the world, gotta give you that, but it has a LOT of functionality and runs on a lot of platforms. I mean a lot. It's still pretty dang speedy too. In this little place called reality, that's more important than hating it because of using $ to denote a scalar variable.
But hey, totally awesome rant nonetheless.
I'd also stay away from Perl if you don't like PHP. Fair warning.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, so I know it pretty well. It has some "wtf" things about it, but it's not nearly as bad as the people on CP that never use it make it out to seem. But in all fairness, it's not a modern language.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I thought so. So far you were the only one who defended it, I think. 
I used to code a lot in Perl, so I am familiar with weird syntax, also. Although I absolutely hate working with Perl, it still is very powerful and is still a valid and relevant tool.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: I used to code a lot in Perl, so I am familiar with weird syntax, also. Although I absolutely hate working with Perl, it still is very powerful and is still a valid and relevant tool.
Totally agree. Same thing with regex. It looks like someone took code and put it in a blender, and yet I'm still very glad we have it because of its flexibility when quickly writing searches in comparison to manually coding one.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: but it has a LOT of functionality and runs on a lot of platforms.
In that, I agree. There is a simple elegance to it, I just wish there was some tool out there that did a Lint or equivalent to find all my stupid mistakes, like passing in $foo and using it like $foos.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: because of using $ to denote a scalar variable.
Wait, I don't have to use the $? I thought it was intended to make it clear this isn't a function definition. Regardless, me noob.
As a lightweight scripting language, it looks like it carries a lot less baggage than other things I've seen.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: But hey, totally awesome rant nonetheless.
I aim to please. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Wait, I don't have to use the $? I thought it was intended to make it clear this isn't a function definition.
The short answer is, you gotta use it.
Marc Clifton wrote: I just wish there was some tool out there that did a Lint or equivalent to find all my stupid mistakes, like passing in $foo and using it like $foos.
This is the biggest problem for the language, they're out there. But the only out-of-the-box solutions like you get with VS aren't free. Even still, there's some configuration that must take place.
Just the Unix-y way of life man. Microsoft excels at ease of use, Unix/Linux says piss off n00b unless you RTFM.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Unix/Linux says piss off n00b unless you pound your brains into a bloody pulp R(ing)TFM, and don't catch the endless exceptions to the rules, because we never F'ing documented them for you! And if we did, we put them in some obscure location that is only findable after your exposed brain stem smashes through the screen, triggering an epileptic-like seizure that miraculously moves your fingers into an archaic 'man' command line sequence that infinite monkeys could never reproduce.
FTFY
|
|
|
|
|
Touché.
Seriously though, the docs are out there, they just tend to be more decentralized than say MSDN. I found it's the same thing with learning wxWidgets too, part of the pain was just finding good documentation online. Open source drawback I suppose, everyone wants to code, nobody wants to write docs.
If I were just starting out with PHP and *nix these days, I'd totally be pouring myself into books at the very least to help the learning curve.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
My frustration with their mentality is that the barrier to entry is too high, like you pointed out. I once had to change a password for a MySQL database, so I followed the instructions here[^]. Note the "'" (single quote) surrounding the password. Since I was doing it from a Windows command prompt there was a whole other level nobody mentioned. Doing it that way actually entered " ' "s in the password! And logging in became impossible. So changing the password was the only option, once I figured out what the issue was (at least fifteen minutes of "OH SH*T, WHAT DID I DO???")
Then there were four more hours ahead of me, because of a single friggin space! None of the examples online showed that the correct command is "mysqladmin -u root -p'xyz123' password newPassword". Note the lack of space between the "p" and the " ' ". I wanted to kill... And that wasn't my first exposure to their stuff.
I'm not afraid of command prompts, having once helped administer a Windows/Solaris hybrid network, but issues like the previous are far too abundant in that world. I want to actually get something done on my computer, not dig through documentation all day.
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: Then there were four more hours ahead of me, because of a single friggin space! None of the examples online showed that the correct command is "mysqladmin -u root -p'xyz123' password newPassword". Note the lack of space between the "p" and the " ' ". I wanted to kill... And that wasn't my first exposure to their stuff.
Oh yeah, that totally annoyed me too. At one point I read there was some technical reason for it, but at the end of the day I suspect that's a load of BS.
David O'Neil wrote: I'm not afraid of command prompts, having once helped administer a Windows/Solaris hybrid network, but issues like the previous are far too abundant in that world. I want to actually get something done on my computer, not dig through documentation all day.
Fair enough, but just about any environment has its quirks. Although I don't have many examples I can think of off the top of my head (old age tends to do that), it still 'tis be true.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: (old age tends to do that)
I wasn't going to say that the network involved Windows for Workgroups....  , so I know the aging feeling.
PS - If you ever have a moment, and care to give some feedback on PHP code, how could this program[^] be improved? That was a self-teaching marathon, having never really touched PHP before, and I'm certain there are probably many tricks I missed, and language issues that could be improved, but the end product seems to work. Thanks. (If not, no problem.)
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
