“测试驱动的软件开发”,与测试无关

Test-Driven Development Is Not About Testing

Summary
I am always on the look out for good questions to ask candidates in an interview. Not the "How many oranges can I fit in this room?" kind of nonsense (the stock response to which is apparently "with or without us standing in it?").
By Dan North
Page 1 of 1

I am always on the look out for good questions to ask candidates in an interview. Not the "How many oranges can I fit in this room?" kind of nonsense (the stock response to which is apparently "with or without us standing in it?"). Nor the picky,encyclopedic type such as "In the javax.obscure.DustyCorner class,which method throws a FullyDocumentedException?" (If you do not respond with "I would check the Javadocs" on the grounds that you actually know,you really ought to get out more.)

Instead,I like the sort of technical question that allows candidates to demonstrate real insight; where they can show not only technical depth and breadth,but also a mature understanding of the software development process. So I was delighted when a colleague offered me a perfect interview question,namely: "What is the point of test-driven development?"

Test-driven development (TDD) has grown out of the Agile software movement (www.agilealliance.org) and Extreme Programming (XP) in particular. Extreme Programming stipulates a set of best practices that collectively encourage core values such as feedback and simplicity. The feedback occurs in the form of tests,by delivering in short iterations,and by the simple expedient of talking to one another. The simplicity comes from the process of refactoring - ruthlessly - and from only delivering exactly what the software has to do right now.

Kent Beck,the original champion of XP,has extracted the essence of its development practices and named it test-driven development. And so to the model interview answer. The point of TDD is to drive out the functionality the software actually needs,rather than what the programmer thinks it probably ought to have. The way it does this seems at first counterintuitive,if not downright silly,but it not only makes sense,it also quickly becomes a natural and elegant way to develop software.

We start by writing some client code as though the code we want to develop already existed and had been written purely to make our life as easy as it could possibly be. This is a tremendously liberating thing to do: by writing a model client for our code,in the form of a test,we can define programmatically the most suitable API for our needs. In addition,we assert the behavior we want.

Obviously this won't even compile,and this is the counterintuitive part - the code that will sit on the other side of the API doesn't even exist yet! The next stage is to write the minimum amount of code to get the test compiling. That's all,just a clean compile,so you can run the test (which at this stage will fail). IDEs such as IntelliJ IDEA or the open source Eclipse will generate missing classes and implement missing methods for you. Now,and only now,you write the application code to satisfy the test. The final piece of the puzzle is to refactor the code so it's as simple as it can be. This then becomes your development rhythm: write a test,write some code,refactor.

Writing the test before you write the code focuses the mind - and the development process - on delivering only what is absolutely necessary. In the large,this means that the system you develop does exactly what it needs to do and no more. This in turn means that it is easy to modify to make it do more things in the future as they are driven out by more tests.

We keep the tests we wrote and run all of them,often,to make sure the system does everything it is supposed to do (and to alert ourselves immediately if we break any existing functionality). However,the extremely useful test suite we've created is very much a secondary benefit of the TDD process.

So when you're sitting in an interview and someone asks you about testdriven development,remember that it's not about the tests; it's about seeing how little you actually need to do and how cleanly you can do it! If someone asks you to fill a room with oranges? Well,I'll leave that to you.

What do you think? Join the Feedback to this item.

版权声明:本文内容由互联网用户自发贡献,该文观点与技术仅代表作者本人。本站仅提供信息存储空间服务,不拥有所有权,不承担相关法律责任。如发现本站有涉嫌侵权/违法违规的内容, 请发送邮件至 dio@foxmail.com 举报,一经查实,本站将立刻删除。

相关推荐


什么是设计模式一套被反复使用、多数人知晓的、经过分类编目的、代码 设计经验 的总结;使用设计模式是为了 可重用 代码、让代码 更容易 被他人理解、保证代码 可靠性;设计模式使代码编制  真正工程化;设计模式使软件工程的 基石脉络, 如同大厦的结构一样;并不直接用来完成代码的编写,而是 描述 在各种不同情况下,要怎么解决问题的一种方案;能使不稳定依赖于相对稳定、具体依赖于相对抽象,避免引
单一职责原则定义(Single Responsibility Principle,SRP)一个对象应该只包含 单一的职责,并且该职责被完整地封装在一个类中。Every  Object should have  a single responsibility, and that responsibility should be entirely encapsulated by t
动态代理和CGLib代理分不清吗,看看这篇文章,写的非常好,强烈推荐。原文截图*************************************************************************************************************************原文文本************
适配器模式将一个类的接口转换成客户期望的另一个接口,使得原本接口不兼容的类可以相互合作。
策略模式定义了一系列算法族,并封装在类中,它们之间可以互相替换,此模式让算法的变化独立于使用算法的客户。
设计模式讲的是如何编写可扩展、可维护、可读的高质量代码,它是针对软件开发中经常遇到的一些设计问题,总结出来的一套通用的解决方案。
模板方法模式在一个方法中定义一个算法的骨架,而将一些步骤延迟到子类中,使得子类可以在不改变算法结构的情况下,重新定义算法中的某些步骤。
迭代器模式提供了一种方法,用于遍历集合对象中的元素,而又不暴露其内部的细节。
外观模式又叫门面模式,它提供了一个统一的(高层)接口,用来访问子系统中的一群接口,使得子系统更容易使用。
单例模式(Singleton Design Pattern)保证一个类只能有一个实例,并提供一个全局访问点。
组合模式可以将对象组合成树形结构来表示“整体-部分”的层次结构,使得客户可以用一致的方式处理个别对象和对象组合。
装饰者模式能够更灵活的,动态的给对象添加其它功能,而不需要修改任何现有的底层代码。
观察者模式(Observer Design Pattern)定义了对象之间的一对多依赖,当对象状态改变的时候,所有依赖者都会自动收到通知。
代理模式为对象提供一个代理,来控制对该对象的访问。代理模式在不改变原始类代码的情况下,通过引入代理类来给原始类附加功能。
工厂模式(Factory Design Pattern)可细分为三种,分别是简单工厂,工厂方法和抽象工厂,它们都是为了更好的创建对象。
状态模式允许对象在内部状态改变时,改变它的行为,对象看起来好像改变了它的类。
命令模式将请求封装为对象,能够支持请求的排队执行、记录日志、撤销等功能。
备忘录模式(Memento Pattern)保存一个对象的某个状态,以便在适当的时候恢复对象。备忘录模式属于行为型模式。 基本介绍 **意图:**在不破坏封装性的前提下,捕获一个对象的内部状态,并在该
顾名思义,责任链模式(Chain of Responsibility Pattern)为请求创建了一个接收者对象的链。这种模式给予请求的类型,对请求的发送者和接收者进行解耦。这种类型的设计模式属于行为
享元模式(Flyweight Pattern)(轻量级)(共享元素)主要用于减少创建对象的数量,以减少内存占用和提高性能。这种类型的设计模式属于结构型模式,它提供了减少对象数量从而改善应用所需的对象结