|
|
|
|
|
by randomdata
917 days ago
|
|
> He may have coined the term but that does not mean he owns it. Certainly not, but there is no redefinition that is anything more than gobbledygook. Look at the very definition you gave: That's not a unique or different way to write tests. It's not even a testing pattern in concept. That's just programming in general. It is not, for example, unusual for you to use an alternative database implementation (e.g. an in-memory database) during development where it is a suitable technical solution to a technical problem, even outside of an automated test environment. To frame it as some special unique kind of test is nonsensical. If we can find a useful definition, by all means, but otherwise what's the point? There is no reason to desperately try to save it with meaningless words just because it is catchy. |
|