the more testing the better? while having tests at unit and integration levels are good...
Test as little as possible/responsible.
I think it was Kent Beck who first articulated that, though it was something many people converged on in the early 2000s in the XP world. Of course it doesn't mean test nothing, it's recognizing tests are liabilities (as all code is) and we need to make sure they are serving a purpose otherwise delete them / refactor them to get rid of duplication of testing and overly verbose long winded tests that keep repeating things over and over again and again, saying the same thing repeatedly, doubling up on testing :)
Wasn't it Kent Beck who came up with Extreme Programming and Test-Driven Development? I think testing was one of the big corner-stones of XP. At what point did that turn into "Test as little as possible"?
"Unit tests are one of the CORNER STONES of Extreme Programming (XP)"
If development is tests-driven and you should minimize the amount of tests then doesn't that also mean you should minimize the amount of development?
Well of course, do not develop more than is needed. But that kind of trivializes the whole agile ideology: "Develop As Little As Possible, that allows you to remain the most Agile"
Minimizing the amount of development also minimizes the number of bugs. Sounds like a great concept.
its the same concept as minimizing the amount of code through design and refactoring. Let the tests drive the code, refactor, and refactor / delte your tests when not needed anymore. :)
Makes sense. But it does seem like a shift in position from the very "test-centric" view of XP.
In the above link I don't see anything about "delete your tests when not needed anymore", or did I miss it?
How do you know when some tests are "not needed any more"? Isn't the idea of regression-testing to keep tests around so you know if any new code will break them? That should give you the "agility" to refactor your code, I think, is what the proponents of XP would say.
Test as little as possible/responsible.
I think it was Kent Beck who first articulated that, though it was something many people converged on in the early 2000s in the XP world. Of course it doesn't mean test nothing, it's recognizing tests are liabilities (as all code is) and we need to make sure they are serving a purpose otherwise delete them / refactor them to get rid of duplication of testing and overly verbose long winded tests that keep repeating things over and over again and again, saying the same thing repeatedly, doubling up on testing :)