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*

6
  • I seems you do not mention any particular advantage of TDD over full testing? This is basically what I think for the moment. Of course the degree of coverage deserves attention. It seems if I add tests only to all classes I modify and on classes that depend on them, I should catch most bugs. So I would conclude selective testing hasn't been disproven (as compared to close to full testing which is essential in TDD)? Commented Aug 2, 2012 at 15:16
  • There is no such a thing as "full testing". Testing can never demonstrate that your code is bug-free. Commented Aug 13, 2012 at 17:50
  • @CesarGon: Nowhere in this post I claimed that (nobody ever claims that, this is prime example of straw man argument). Heck, I even explicitly stated OP should not follow "delusive magical-fairy-tale 100%" coverage. Commented Aug 13, 2012 at 19:37
  • @jimmy_keen: Then I must have misunderstood; sorry. In that case, what do you mean by "full testing"? How can you achieve such a thing? Commented Aug 14, 2012 at 19:59
  • @CesarGon: OP mentioned sporadic testing which, as I understand, is writing unit test when you feel it matters. Instead, one could start with TDD and decide when not to write unit test. After all, it's much easier to determine that "this code has small chances of breaking, so I skip test" (because you wrote similar code many times) rather than "this code will break, so I write test" (it's essentially the same story as is it a bug when you know about it upfront issue I mentioned). That's what I meant by full testing; do selection, but not when to write, but rather when not to write. Commented Aug 17, 2012 at 12:11