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

[Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I guess modern unit tests get associated with TDD
>> and Agile, so maybe having separate test assertions (written in prose)
>> would be a 'no no' for many unit test writers as it might be seen as going
>> against Agile mantras.
>
> It's not really anything to do with agile or TDD, it's a no-no because
> the developers writing the code and junit tests have no need for a
> natural language abstraction layer getting in the way - the people who
> wrote the code know how to write the test.
>

Which brings me to the other factor that prompted me to start this
thread was my exchange with Simon in which I pointed out and he
acknowledged that Developers are called upon to do all sorts of things
they are not trained to do.

It used to be that the developers did their private tests - if you
were lucky they would write a test plan that may go through a
review/inspection - often times they would not.

Where a developers testing is private it is fine for nothing to get in
the way. The problem is that in the Agile/TDD developer centric world
the developer tests often morph into some sort of regression pack and
developers do not innately  know how to write those. Because their
testing is no longer private the getting in the way argument doesn't
apply. If a developer doesn't have a good sense of what tests to throw
away and what tests to keep it will show in the regression pack and
impact the whole project (for fun I googled throw away test before
pressing send... lots of links).

Like I said some kookoo ideas emerged from developments sudden
interest in testing. One of them is that it is ok for
regression/acceptance/integration tests and the like to be written in
a language that only the developer can understand.