Unit testing: not just for testing
I've said it before and I'll say it again: unit testing is not a testing technique; it's a design technique.
Got that? The point of the technique is to reduce coupling between modules, which promotes code reuse and means you don't get nasty surprises when you come to make changes to it later. The fact that it also inoculates your code against future breakage is mostly incidental.
Vikar Hokstad gets it. If you can't instantiate business objects without connecting to a database, your code is too tightly coupled and it's going to drag you down.
Over the years, I've heard a lot of excuses for why code isn't unit tested, and nearly all of them boil down to "it's too hard". Michael Feathers wrote a whole book on this, which turned out to be a 450-page euphemism for "try harder then". There's always a way, and your code will be better for you spending the time to find it.
Got that? The point of the technique is to reduce coupling between modules, which promotes code reuse and means you don't get nasty surprises when you come to make changes to it later. The fact that it also inoculates your code against future breakage is mostly incidental.
Vikar Hokstad gets it. If you can't instantiate business objects without connecting to a database, your code is too tightly coupled and it's going to drag you down.
Over the years, I've heard a lot of excuses for why code isn't unit tested, and nearly all of them boil down to "it's too hard". Michael Feathers wrote a whole book on this, which turned out to be a 450-page euphemism for "try harder then". There's always a way, and your code will be better for you spending the time to find it.
posted by Pete Bevin at
10:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home