There seems to be so much emphasis on testing in the Rails community.
This is just food for thought...
Kreitzberg and Shneiderman
* Testing by itself does not improve software quality. Test results
are an indicator of quality, but in and of themselves, they dont
improve it. Trying to improve software quality by increasing the amount
of testing is like trying to lose weight by weighing yourself more
often. What you eat before you step onto the scale determines how much
you will weigh, and the software development techniques you use
determine how many errors testing will find. If you want to lose weight,
dont buy a new scale; change your diet. If you want to improve your
software, dont test more; develop better.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Dominic Son wrote:> There seems to be so much emphasis on testing in the Rails community. > This is just food for thought... > > Kreitzberg and Shneiderman > > * Testing by itself does not improve software quality.That discusses big-bang testing, by a QA crew, at the end of an iteration. And you can bet the iteration was longer than one week. Rails and other "agile" projects rely on tests written by the same engineers who write the features. I myself don''t think that endless debugging improves quality very much, so I add tests as I go, and if they fail unexpectedly, I have the option to Revert back to the last state where all tests pass. Oh, and naturally we configure a rake submit command that only commits code to SVN if it first passes a test run. Quality skyrockets, and the tests themselves are just part of the system. It''s how you use the tests that count.> If you want to improve your > software, don''t test more; develop better.Oh, if I want higher quality, I need to raise my quality. Gotcha! -- Phlip http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I''ll agree that testing is just a tool. Even the best tool will not help if not applied properly. Testing probably won''t make up for poor development skills. But, as someone who has been using rails testing for a short time now, I believe it to be a very valuable tool. I find that testing before and after each change I make has helped me catch mistakes quickly. This, ( along wth SVN), has been especially useful during long programming sessions when the mind starts to get dull. I''m sure as my understanding of rails testing improves, my software quality will improve as well. I look forward to the journey. -Larry On 2/14/07, Dominic Son <rails-mailing-list-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > > There seems to be so much emphasis on testing in the Rails community. > This is just food for thought... > > Kreitzberg and Shneiderman > > * Testing by itself does not improve software quality. Test results > are an indicator of quality, but in and of themselves, they don''t > improve it. Trying to improve software quality by increasing the amount > of testing is like trying to lose weight by weighing yourself more > often. What you eat before you step onto the scale determines how much > you will weigh, and the software development techniques you use > determine how many errors testing will find. If you want to lose weight, > don''t buy a new scale; change your diet. If you want to improve your > software, don''t test more; develop better. > > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. > > > >-- Best Regards, -Larry "Work, work, work...there is no satisfactory alternative." --- E.Taft Benson --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On 2/15/07, Dominic Son <rails-mailing-list-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > There seems to be so much emphasis on testing in the Rails community. > This is just food for thought... > > Kreitzberg and Shneiderman > > * Testing by itself does not improve software quality. Test results > are an indicator of quality, but in and of themselves, they don''t > improve it. Trying to improve software quality by increasing the amount > of testing is like trying to lose weight by weighing yourself more > often. What you eat before you step onto the scale determines how much > you will weigh, and the software development techniques you use > determine how many errors testing will find. If you want to lose weight, > don''t buy a new scale; change your diet. If you want to improve your > software, don''t test more; develop better. >Automated tests cannot prove the absence of bugs, they can only prove their presence. In response to the last statement of the quote above: If you want to improve your software, refactor. If you cannot refactor your software because you''re afraid you might break something, you don''t have enough automated tests. --max --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Max Muermann wrote:> Automated tests cannot prove the absence of bugs, they can only prove > their presence.Washing your hands before performing surgery cannot get rid of /all/ germs, so you may as well not bother! ;-) -- Phlip --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> Washing your hands before performing surgery cannot get rid of /all/ > germs, so you may as well not bother! ;-)Well said :0) All of this is also assuming that the only benefits that we get from testing are less bugs. There is a trend towards Test-driven development in the rails community and once you start doing that, testing becomes far more than just ''finding bugs''. Also, the original quote''s metaphor breaks down when applied to TDD. Testing first is like saying "What weight do I want to be?" then working out until you get to that weight - which makes far more sense : 0) And man... ''develop better''? - what a nerdy thing to say... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Writing tests informs the design of whatever I''m testing. I often refactor code to make it more testable, which generally means decreasing coupling, improving interfaces, and applying consistent conventions. These improvements don''t just improve testability, they improve the overally quality of my code. More tests + intelligent refactoring == better code. On 2/15/07, Steve Bartholomew <steve-LWB5c3/XHbdBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > > Washing your hands before performing surgery cannot get rid of /all/ > > germs, so you may as well not bother! ;-) > Well said :0) > > All of this is also assuming that the only benefits that we get from > testing are less bugs. There is a trend towards Test-driven > development in the rails community and once you start doing that, > testing becomes far more than just ''finding bugs''. > > Also, the original quote''s metaphor breaks down when applied to TDD. > Testing first is like saying "What weight do I want to be?" then > working out until you get to that weight - which makes far more sense : > 0) > > And man... ''develop better''? - what a nerdy thing to say... > > > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On 2/16/07, Phlip <phlip2005-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > Max Muermann wrote: > > > Automated tests cannot prove the absence of bugs, they can only prove > > their presence. > > Washing your hands before performing surgery cannot get rid of /all/ > germs, so you may as well not bother! ;-) > > -- > Phlip >That''s not what I meant at all. Of course unit tests are incredibly important and even terrible test coverage is better than no coverage. But it is dangerous to assume a piece of software to be bug-free because all the unit tests pass. A failed test is one that has just caught a bug. A passed test is one that may just not be testing the right edge case. --max --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Max Muermann wrote:> > > Automated tests cannot prove the absence of bugs, they can only prove > > > their presence. > > > > Washing your hands before performing surgery cannot get rid of /all/ > > germs, so you may as well not bother! ;-)> That''s not what I meant at all.There are actually software engineers out there who use the line you quoted as an excuse not to write any tests. (I generally figured you quoted it tongue-in-cheek, and I responded in kind, with a winky.)> Of course unit tests are incredibly > important and even terrible test coverage is better than no coverage. > But it is dangerous to assume a piece of software to be bug-free > because all the unit tests pass. A failed test is one that has just > caught a bug. A passed test is one that may just not be testing the > right edge case.Focus on the word "assume". Tests don''t exist in isolation, written requirements don''t either, and version controllers don''t, and so on. Nobody on a team who uses TDD and frequent iterations assumes that software is life-critical-ready just because we TDDed it. If anything, TDD adds to the metrics showing exactly how frail our software is. A unit test that springs loose half the time is valuable because we can still fix it, pass it, and check in. It''s also valuable as a negative metric. -- Phlip http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On 2/16/07, Phlip <phlip2005-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > Max Muermann wrote: > > > > > Automated tests cannot prove the absence of bugs, they can only prove > > > > their presence. > > > > > > Washing your hands before performing surgery cannot get rid of /all/ > > > germs, so you may as well not bother! ;-) > > > That''s not what I meant at all. > > There are actually software engineers out there who use the line you > quoted as an excuse not to write any tests. (I generally figured you > quoted it tongue-in-cheek, and I responded in kind, with a winky.)I did - only I sort-of missed the winky ;)> > > Of course unit tests are incredibly > > important and even terrible test coverage is better than no coverage. > > But it is dangerous to assume a piece of software to be bug-free > > because all the unit tests pass. A failed test is one that has just > > caught a bug. A passed test is one that may just not be testing the > > right edge case. > > Focus on the word "assume". Tests don''t exist in isolation, written > requirements don''t either, and version controllers don''t, and so on. > Nobody on a team who uses TDD and frequent iterations assumes that > software is life-critical-ready just because we TDDed it. If anything, > TDD adds to the metrics showing exactly how frail our software is. A > unit test that springs loose half the time is valuable because we can > still fix it, pass it, and check in. It''s also valuable as a negative > metric. >I''m in violent agreement here. I cannot imagine working on a software project without great test coverage. I can also not imagine not conducting design and code reviews. I have, on the other hand, seen projects forego any sort of review process because they had (close to) 100% test coverage. --max --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---