Comments on: The importance of unit testing and functional testing http://www.apparatusproject.org/blog/2009/07/the-importance-of-unit-testing-and-functional-testing/ Make stuff to do things Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:28:52 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Structured Methods › links for 2009-07-10 http://www.apparatusproject.org/blog/2009/07/the-importance-of-unit-testing-and-functional-testing/comment-page-1/#comment-16 Structured Methods › links for 2009-07-10 Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:05:31 +0000 http://app.arat.us/blog/?p=159#comment-16 [...] The importance of unit testing and functional testing | Apparatus I recently read a blog article, Benefits of automated functional testing, which included a section arguing that unit testing was not as important as functional testing. I agree that functional testing is important (and the author provides several good arguments for it) but I am concerned about the negativity against unit testing. [...] [...] The importance of unit testing and functional testing | Apparatus I recently read a blog article, Benefits of automated functional testing, which included a section arguing that unit testing was not as important as functional testing. I agree that functional testing is important (and the author provides several good arguments for it) but I am concerned about the negativity against unit testing. [...]

]]> By: James Christie http://www.apparatusproject.org/blog/2009/07/the-importance-of-unit-testing-and-functional-testing/comment-page-1/#comment-15 James Christie Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:35:34 +0000 http://app.arat.us/blog/?p=159#comment-15 Yes, I like the analogy, but maybe there's a danger that it could trigger pointless philosophical engineering debate about exactly where a bridge derives its strength from.<br><br>I'd prefer to use the analogy in simple terms. It would be madness to see if the rivetters had secured their bolts properly by completing the bridge then testing it could take the load. Much cheaper to test their work as early as possible, rather than seeing if the whole thing fell down!<br><br>Complexity certainly does arise from the integration of all the components. That just makes it all the more important that basic bugs in individual components are spotted as early as possible rather than allowing them to screw up the integration testing, which is the stage you're really wanting to see if components that work individually will combine as desired. Yes, I like the analogy, but maybe there's a danger that it could trigger pointless philosophical engineering debate about exactly where a bridge derives its strength from.

I'd prefer to use the analogy in simple terms. It would be madness to see if the rivetters had secured their bolts properly by completing the bridge then testing it could take the load. Much cheaper to test their work as early as possible, rather than seeing if the whole thing fell down!

Complexity certainly does arise from the integration of all the components. That just makes it all the more important that basic bugs in individual components are spotted as early as possible rather than allowing them to screw up the integration testing, which is the stage you're really wanting to see if components that work individually will combine as desired.

]]>