|
|
|
|
|
|
by bbbobbb
1088 days ago
|
|
|
I agree with you about ideal approach to tests and spec but sometimes the "specification coming from elsewhere" is pretty vague, incomplete or simply lost in time. In that case, if I have code that satisfies that specification as demonstrated by say acceptance testing or years of use, I will happily opt for test that take the code as specification. I am not using those tests to prove the code "correct" but to prevent regressions during refactor or new feature development later on. Worse case scenario they should keep the program as broken as it is now or has been for years. |
|
|
Then you don't really need to have the tests written, what you need to do is to compare the output and behavior of the two code bases before and after refactoring. I mean why use a low fidelity approximation of the original (i.e. test that only works in some cases), if you already have the original at hand? (After all, how can you predict ahead of time, which features of the original version will need to be tested as preserved in the new version? Isn't writing regression tests in advance a form of premature optimization?)
From the view point of testing, you're comparing two implementations. So again there needs to be some understanding which one is the correct specification - the original one or the new one?
It would be more useful if the industry actually treated the two cases - i.e. testing against specification and regression testing of the refactored code - as completely separate, instead of trying to push unit tests for everything. Because in the latter case, ideally you can prove that the refactored code is doing identical thing, which is stronger than testing.