Unit Testing, Agile Development, Leadership & .NET - By Roy Osherove
Don't forget simple good programming. In my experience, simply refactoring your tests as you write them, to remove duplication and better express intent, produces high quality test code and doesn't require ever more complex tools.
E.g. nat.truemesh.com/.../000714.html
Here's some updates:
RBehave is merged into RSpec, so RSpec includes a story runner now
NUnit.Behave and NSpec have merged into NBehave, which now includes specs and story runner.
Spectre is a BDD framework written in Boo (specter.sourceforge.net).
Scott is also working on something, but I don't know if it's public yet.
Pingback from Reflective Perspective - Chris Alcock » The Morning Brew #13
I wrote an article a couple of weeks back about a pattern that I use when I do unit testing in .Net. It allows for access of non public fields in the tested class making it easier to install test doubles in the class while not having to alter the public interface of the class. Please check it out at: ondevelopment.blogspot.com/.../unit-testing-pattern.html
An interesting start. I'm not sure about the chronology. The first was SUnit (Smalltalk) and I think we're still trying to get back to that degree of simplicity. That's also where the test name convention came from which some of us think is unnecessary.
As always happens, most of the ideas were there very early on, but not widely understood. Much of the subsequent work has been to do with clarification rather than radical new concepts.
Pingback from Chile ??gil » Blog Archive » La evoluci??n de la sintaxis y semantica en las Pruebas de Unidad (Unit Testing)
As I was looking back and forward on the changing syntax of testing and mock frameworks, it occurs to
Pingback from Testid on ilusad « Beautiful code