Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

19
  • 8
    +1 "designing the tests up front on a high level as part of the planning phase - alongside the architectural design" Sounds a lot more reasonable to me as well. Commented Aug 4, 2011 at 12:45
  • 11
    @Aaronaught Agile doesn't mean no planning, it means just in time planning. Commented Aug 4, 2011 at 13:54
  • 27
    @Adam Jaskiewicz: I love the "no upfront planning" thing. C'mon, planning is upfront by definition. If you don't plan beforehand but during the event you are not planning at all; you are improvising. ;-) Commented Aug 4, 2011 at 16:48
  • 39
    @Adam - "Do people really jump straight into coding on the first day of an iteration?" erm yep. That's "Agile" man. Last place I worked (and got fired from for not being "Agile") they did an entire 3 month release cycle without ever planning a single line of code or doing a single page of documentation. And yes the code was terrible and yes the software was slow, clunky and buggy. The day I joined I was told proudly by the manager that they were "The most Agile shop in London". They sure were. Commented Aug 4, 2011 at 18:20
  • 9
    Can add another problem: as long as it passes the test, it mush be good. Never mind that the test itself may well be flawed and thus causes false negatives and/or false positives. And of course requiring "100% test coverage" and anything that has such is by definition perfect, causing useless tests that don't actually test anything but are written solely to achieve that 100% coverage, code that's undocumented because your coverage counter counts comments as uncovered code, etc. etc. Commented Aug 9, 2011 at 6:22