elementary-dev-community team mailing list archive

[Craig <weberc2@xxxxxxxxx>]

David,

I understand and appreciate the difficulty; however, I've had exactly zero
questions about TDD. Like I said in the original post, I'm happy to answer
any questions you may have.

Please take me up on that offer any time.

Thanks,
Craig
On Aug 18, 2013 6:57 PM, "David Gomes" <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> This, this and this.
>
> And also many of the developers like me aren't really experienced with TDD
> and will have to take some time to study, learn and adapt to it. You can't
> just come here and tell developers, many of whom inexperienced young
> amateur programmers, to start using TDDs. Take me, for example, I never had
> proper programming education, I'm 17 years old. I know what TDD is but I've
> never used it before. You have to understand TDD is something very
> enterprise-ish and "professional" that "big serious" companies do.
>
> Look, I'm not saying we can't do it or we shouldn't do it or we won't do
> it - I'm just saying you need a better approach to what you're doing. I
> realize how useful and important TDD can be, but many of us might just be
> too busy having fun.
>
> Regards,
> David
>
> PS. I really hope I wasn't rude, I mean all I said in the nicest of ways.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Daniel Foré <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> This all sounds great and I think everybody is pro-testing, however I've
>> yet to see a reproduce-able example or a guide regarding any kind of tests
>> being implemented (especially by those extremely vocal about their
>> importance). Not books or articles about why testing is good, but something
>> that actually shows a person how to write tests for their apps.
>>
>> So, as Linus would say, "Talk is cheap. Show me the code."
>> —
>> Sent from Mailbox <https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox> for iPhone
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Craig <weberc2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Alex,
>>>
>>> tl;dr: Unit tests are pretty much necessary to have an architecture on
>>> which you can run automatic system-level tests, and if you aren't
>>> automating then testing becomes too impractical.
>>>
>>> When you describe "system tests" you are actually describing what are
>>> called "acceptance tests" or "behavioral" tests (
>>> http://www.extremeprogramming.org/rules/functionaltests.html). Unit
>>> tests test small units of code such as classes or functions. Traditional
>>> TDD relies primarily upon unit tests, and those are primarily what I'm
>>> referring to.
>>>
>>> One of the primary purposes of unit testing is to ensure good code
>>> architecture. If you don't unit test, you probably won't have good access
>>> points for your acceptance tests (how do you verify that that Gtk.Label has
>>> the correct text when you can only access the top level window?), so
>>> automation will be out of the question. And if you aren't automating then
>>> you can't continuously integrate (running all tests every time a change is
>>> made to the repository in order to find bugs as soon as they are made).
>>> Honestly, if you aren't automating then testing becomes too impractical.
>>> On Aug 18, 2013 5:10 PM, "Alex Lourie" <djay.il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Craig
>>>>
>>>> For the clarification purposes, I'd like to separate 'automatic tests
>>>> (system testst)' and 'unittests'. I consider them different things.
>>>> Unittests are pieces of code that test some other pieces of the code.
>>>> System tests are scripts/code/steps that test that your program (or part of
>>>> it) works. Unittests are usually run automatically (by, say, unittesting
>>>> framework). System tests could be run automatically or manually. There are,
>>>> sometimes, frameworks for that, but in most cases it's either manual or
>>>> custom developed.
>>>>
>>>> Unittests are (usually) developed by the same developer who developed
>>>> the original code, just as in your TDD example. System tests are best
>>>> developed by external party (such as users).
>>>>
>>>> From here on, I can agree with you on point 1, and the naming.
>>>>
>>>> Basically, we all agree that having *testing *is a good practice and a
>>>> feasible way to manage the complexity of software. But unittesting cannot
>>>> test the logical connections between the blocks of code in the program.
>>>> That's the job for system testing.
>>>>
>>>> I don't care how we call it. The more *systematic *testing we do for
>>>> Elementary the better it's going to be, and the more chances we have to
>>>> sustain growth.
>>>>
>>>> So I would just like to see testing implemented. Any kind of it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Craig <weberc2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>>
>>>>> To correct you on a couple of things:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. TDD **does not** require you to have all or even several of the
>>>>> tests written before hand. It simply requires you to have the test written
>>>>> for the next change you are about to make. The idea is to write a test, run
>>>>> the test to watch it fail (this helps verify you wrote your test
>>>>> correctly), add the simplest code to make the test pass, run the test to
>>>>> watch it pass (and verify your code additions worked). Then you rinse and
>>>>> repeat.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. TDD is actually a simplified form of what developers do already.
>>>>> That is, you usually write some code, run your code, then visually verify
>>>>> that it worked. TDD just crystalizes this process in code which can be
>>>>> executed later. TDD isn't hard, so it's well within the capacity of all of
>>>>> our devs; however, it does taking some getting used to. TDD is the best and
>>>>> fastest way to develop quality code and it's the ONLY practical way to
>>>>> raise the ceiling on the amount of code complexity a team of a given size
>>>>> can handle (there is a lot of research and professional heuristics about
>>>>> this). If a developer doesn't have the will to do this, they aren't taking
>>>>> their discipline seriously and, frankly, are a danger to any project that
>>>>> values quality. Besides, I've never met a developer who has hit the
>>>>> complexity ceiling *and* who has practiced TDD who doesn't advocate this
>>>>> kind of testing.
>>>>>
>>>>> With those corrections in mind, I can't see any difference between
>>>>> your first point and "real TDD". I agree that your 2nd point is a good
>>>>> idea. Automated testing can't capture everything, and it's definitely
>>>>> important to have some hands-on testing that we could run through a few
>>>>> times every release. But we should always be working toward automated
>>>>> testing so developers can, you know, develop.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Alex Lourie <djay.il@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, I have not added a single line of code to elementary yet, and
>>>>>> gave some decent amount of headache to real devs around here. I have though
>>>>>> participated in development of many products, small and large, and so here
>>>>>> it goes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TDD in its pure form requires having tests written and ready before
>>>>>> the code is written. Then failing tests are being implemented one by one,
>>>>>> having the code both tested and working in the end of this process. I
>>>>>> highly doubt that any of Elementary devs have the capacity or the will to
>>>>>> follow this. Especially, when many of our projects are built using 'try and
>>>>>> error' methodology, that is they follow the 'Hey! Let's try this!' rule.
>>>>>> Which is awesome, as it allows fast development and really quick release
>>>>>> cycles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, what I think would fit Elementary much better is simply testing
>>>>>> (yes, that QA thing everyone loves and adores) - the T from TDD, which is
>>>>>> the most important part. The best way to do that is, of course, to create a
>>>>>> bunch of automatic tests, but that's not really feasible either. So as I
>>>>>> see it, we can do 2 things:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Start looking into unittesting as much and as early as possible,
>>>>>> and have devs starting to create tests. This has the benefit of devs
>>>>>> learning to create unittests and having some of the code tested, and also,
>>>>>> potentially, at some point, it could help moving to real TDD.
>>>>>> 2. Start creating manual test procedures for basic staff. Yes, it
>>>>>> requires a lot of human power and time, but also do translations. This is
>>>>>> the most boring part of software engineering, but it is the one that can
>>>>>> bring balance to the force. Also, some of these can sometimes be automated
>>>>>> too, so it's not all that aweful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I personally think we need both 1 and 2. I am a strong believer in
>>>>>> testing as means to improve the product. But TDD is probably an overshoot
>>>>>> in our case. We need to start with *something*, and right now we don't
>>>>>> really have it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Craig <weberc2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I posted the following message on Google Plus yesterday, but it
>>>>>>> occurred to me that the weekend may not be prime time for checking that
>>>>>>> social network. I think this message is pretty important, so I want to post
>>>>>>> it again here: (I apologize in advance for its length)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Congratulations to all the developers who made Luna such a success!
>>>>>>>>  You've done a great job and delivered an incredible Linux experience!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know I bring this up periodically, but I'm concerned that Luna +
>>>>>>>> 1 and future releases will take more and more time to release, and/or that
>>>>>>>> you will quickly reach a ceiling with respect to the amount of code we'll
>>>>>>>> be able to maintain before quality degrades.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The cause for my concern is the nature of complexity: as software
>>>>>>>> grows (that is, as code is added), bugs grow exponentially (complexity
>>>>>>>> increases exponentially with logic, and bugs grow linearly with
>>>>>>>> complexity). If we don't start working toward solutions that will scale
>>>>>>>> with this problem, we **will** hit a ceiling with respect to the amount of
>>>>>>>> complexity we will be able to support (this means fewer features or
>>>>>>>> less-powerful features). I promise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know some in the community are working toward this goal, but I
>>>>>>>> think it's going to take a concerted effort on the part of the developers
>>>>>>>> to take this problem seriously. I urge you all to take this problem as
>>>>>>>> seriously as you take the rest of the user experience (because bugs are, at
>>>>>>>> the end of the day, a sharp degradation of the user experience).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In my experience, the silver bullet for combating this problem is
>>>>>>>> test driven development. If you look around the software development
>>>>>>>> industry, code is improving, and it's largely because TDD is catching on.
>>>>>>>> And Google is a good role model in this regard (not just for us, but for
>>>>>>>> everyone--they are pioneers of code quality). If you're a developer and
>>>>>>>> you're unfamiliar with TDD, take some time and research it. It will pay
>>>>>>>> dividends immediately. If you have any questions about development, I'm
>>>>>>>> happy to provide my advice as a professional developer. Also, read up on
>>>>>>>> Google's testing strategies (I recommend
>>>>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Google-Tests-Software-James-Whittaker/dp/0321803027_How Google Tests Software_).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You guys are a _great_ UX shop, now let's become a great code shop.
>>>>>>>> I hope this analogy doesn't offend anyone who is passionate about their
>>>>>>>> tech brands, but my advice is this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Design like Apple, develop like Google.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I really push you developers to continue to strive to hone your
>>>>>>>> craft the way Daniel and Cassidy (and any other UX designers) are learning
>>>>>>>> to hone theirs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> P.S., Sorry for the book, and I hope you all take this as
>>>>>>>> respectful, constructive criticism. _Please_ ask me anything about
>>>>>>>> development, especially with respect to how we can keep quality high using
>>>>>>>> processes rather than sheer developer effort (so as to free you developers
>>>>>>>> to work on interesting problems rather than bug hunting).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for reading,
>>>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community
>>>>>>> Post to     : elementary-dev-community@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community
>>>>>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Alex Lourie
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Alex Lourie
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community
>> Post to     : elementary-dev-community@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>>
>