Unit testing

> From: Sean P. DeNigris <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [Newbies] Unit testing
> To: [hidden email]
> Date: Sunday, April 18, 2010, 1:33 AM
>
> After doing a lot of snooping around my image, I was
> surprised by the unit
> tests I saw (this is not a criticism, but me wanting to
> understand and
> contribute to the Squeak philosophy).  Coming from
> C++, and then Ruby, the
> conversation is (for unit tests) to mock/stub out
> absolutely everything that
> the object-under-test interacts with; of course augmented
> by
> integration/functional/acceptance tests to verify the
> actual interactions.
> Dependency injection is in full force (which I always find
> ugly and
> complicated, but does make testing very easy).
>
> Yet in Squeak's core, I found things like
> KernelTests-Chronology
> StopwatchTest>>testActive, which sets a delay and -
> gasp - actually waits
> for the time to tick by.  I would've always created a
> clock double to
> pretend that time had passed (even though, for the few
> seconds that passed
> in these particular tests, probably not a big deal; but
> when you add similar
> tests up all over the image?).
>
> Also, in Ruby, there is a huge push (e.g. rspec community)
> to write tests
> that a prospective library user could come along and see
> clear examples of
> how to use the classes; not to mention the BDD craze (which
> I've seen a few
> libraries for, but don't seem to be widely used) that helps
> refocus design
> based on behavior.
>
> Anyway, I'm presenting this because I am blown away by the
> Dynabook/Open
> Personal Computing vision.  I'm clear that all the
> objects in my world want
> to live in a Squeak image.
> So it's important to me to:
> * spur conversation and growth
> * make sure code that I write fits with the spirit of the
> community
>
> Thanks.
> Sean DeNigris
> --