Fwd: [xml-dev] Testing XML don't use xUnit

[Fraser Goffin <goffinf@gmail.com>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Fraser Goffin <goffinf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 19:51:55 +0100
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Testing XML don't use xUnit
To: John Cowan <johnwcowan@gmail.com>

Fair enough, we can conflate the specific words we use and even
combine them ... e.g 'functional unit tests'. But yes, if we view unit
tests more at the internal then I agree, but that doesn't change my
view of the purpose of tests, that being, they are not to show that
some code works, its that that code demonstrates that it fulfills it's
requirement, be that business or technical.

On 10/04/2013, John Cowan <johnwcowan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Fraser Goffin <goffinf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Indeed, but that's a different problem than the one being discussed. IMHO
>> that's about making sure that your tests are a demonstration of the
>> business requirements and not a demonstration that some code does
>> something
>> successfully.
>>
>
> Well, okay, but *unit* tests rarely correspond well to business
> requirements, that's much more likely to be the domain of *functional*
> tests, which a focus on unit testing often causes to be underprovided.
>
> --
> GMail doesn't have rotating .sigs, but you can see mine at
> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/signatures
>