elementary-dev-community team mailing list archive

[David Gomes <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

So say this code for example:

http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~elementary-apps/pantheon-terminal/trunk/view/head:/src/TerminalWidget.vala#L37

Sometimes we have some issues with ReGex (see
https://code.launchpad.net/~voldyman/pantheon-terminal/colon-fixed/+merge/180735
).

Is that the kind of thing we can use TDD for? Like have a bunch of URLs and
see if Terminal detects them or not without any GUI, just terminal
Found/Not Found messages?

~David "Munchor" Gomes


On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Craig <weberc2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>>
>>