[rspec-users] Do you still Write Tests First on code that is churning hard?
court3nay at gmail.com
Fri Feb 19 04:41:08 EST 2010
Testing should answer this question for you, regularly: How do you
know it works?
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Erik Pukinskis
<erikpukinskis at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Specmeisters!
> I have a bit of a philosophical question for the TDD witches and
> wizards out there. I'm working on some code that is really
> churning... It's doing complicated calculations, but the actual
> desired results are a moving target. The acceptable values, and even
> the structure of the software's output are changing constantly. The
> internal architecture is changing rapidly, and I'm constantly throwing
> away methods I no longer need.
> This has resulted in me no longer writing specs on this part of my
> codebase. They just become obsolete very very fast. Changing the
> specs constantly feels like a pointless doubling of my effort. Specs
> seem to help with debugging and verification that the software is
> performing as expected. But I'm spending most of my time trying to
> figure out what I should be expecting. I verify that things are
> working quickly and informally, because it's likely the definition of
> "working" will change before the week is up.
> Am I being stupid? Is it really a pointless doubling, or am I
> creating more debugging time for myself than I'm saving without
> writing specs? Should I be more religious about Test First?
> Thanks in advance for the insights,
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
More information about the rspec-users