I think I'm missing something? Shouldn't we want the green step to actually go "full green". Shouldn't there not be any failing tests? Earlier in part 5, you just kind of say to "comment out of the test", is this something you are planning on addressing later?
Luciano de Sousa Pereira.
Brazilian.
Bacharel degree in Computer Engineering.
Full Stack Developer with 5 years of experience in multiple frameworks and programming languages.
Thanks for the contact.
Probably you are talking about "Theory".
In fact, the way I work is to give multiple values to a "Theory" and expected at least one of them to be red.
Why?
Because this way I can make sure that the validation won't fail if a valid value be used.
If you do not agree with this practice, just comment the "InlineData" that would return a red test result.
Have I answered your question?
Yes, that is the part I was talking about. I don't understand why you would want a failing test case to "stick around". IMO, this would cause you to need to review the tests every time to confirm you didn't actually break something. Image having thousands and thousands of test cases with several developers. I feel you would need to consistently be checking which ones are failing to know if you broke something or if that is "one of the ones that supposed to be there".
Luciano de Sousa Pereira.
Brazilian.
Bacharel degree in Computer Engineering.
Full Stack Developer with 5 years of experience in multiple frameworks and programming languages.
Unfortunately, I've had a bad experience in the past that made me paranoic about the possibility of a valid value being considered invalid. Since then, I've tested it as well in my Theories. I know I am breaking the a TDD rule, but it was only my vision as developer.
I will edit my posts to let very clear that this approach was my decision.
Thanks anyway.
What about making the test "invertible", by adding a bool parameter which will swap failure and success around if set to true? That way the test would still exist and be green
Luciano de Sousa Pereira.
Brazilian.
Bacharel degree in Computer Engineering.
Full Stack Developer with 5 years of experience in multiple frameworks and programming languages.
to make it clear, have separate SUCCESS and FAIL test is a good thing, like:
expect that all users with names less than 20 chars to be accepted
expect all users with names more than 20 chars to be rejected (rejection is accepted so it's our GREEN indicator).
best to do one test per fact, e.g. test the 20 char limit, test if there's at least a special char in the password and have multiple values for that test that should pass.
same way give multiple values for the test where the failing condition is tested, e.g.:
fact_password_without_special_chars_should_be_rejected
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I think I'm missing something? Shouldn't we want the green step to actually go "full green". Shouldn't there not be any failing tests? Earlier in part 5, you just kind of say to "comment out of the test", is this something you are planning on addressing later?
Thanks for the contact.
Probably you are talking about "Theory".
In fact, the way I work is to give multiple values to a "Theory" and expected at least one of them to be red.
Why?
Because this way I can make sure that the validation won't fail if a valid value be used.
If you do not agree with this practice, just comment the "InlineData" that would return a red test result.
Have I answered your question?
Yes, that is the part I was talking about. I don't understand why you would want a failing test case to "stick around". IMO, this would cause you to need to review the tests every time to confirm you didn't actually break something. Image having thousands and thousands of test cases with several developers. I feel you would need to consistently be checking which ones are failing to know if you broke something or if that is "one of the ones that supposed to be there".
Just my 2 cents
Unfortunately, I've had a bad experience in the past that made me paranoic about the possibility of a valid value being considered invalid. Since then, I've tested it as well in my Theories. I know I am breaking the a TDD rule, but it was only my vision as developer.
I will edit my posts to let very clear that this approach was my decision.
Thanks anyway.
What about making the test "invertible", by adding a bool parameter which will swap failure and success around if set to true? That way the test would still exist and be green
good idea.
I've made something similar but using enum.
to make it clear, have separate SUCCESS and FAIL test is a good thing, like:
best to do one test per fact, e.g. test the 20 char limit, test if there's at least a special char in the password and have multiple values for that test that should pass.
same way give multiple values for the test where the failing condition is tested, e.g.:
fact_password_without_special_chars_should_be_rejected