Comments on: Thought-provoking TDD exercise at the Software Craftsmanship conference http://gojko.net/2009/02/27/thought-provoking-tdd-exercise-at-the-software-craftsmanship-conference/ Building software that matters Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:28:45 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Practice, Code Exercises, and Code Katas : Steve Smith's Blog http://gojko.net/2009/02/27/thought-provoking-tdd-exercise-at-the-software-craftsmanship-conference/comment-page-1/#comment-58680 Practice, Code Exercises, and Code Katas : Steve Smith's Blog Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:31:34 +0000 http://gojko.net/?p=705#comment-58680 [...] TDD As If You Meant It: Go – This writeup of an excercise done at the SC 2009 conference demonstrates how to really take small steps. [...] [...] TDD As If You Meant It: Go – This writeup of an excercise done at the SC 2009 conference demonstrates how to really take small steps. [...]

]]> By: Niklas Gawell http://gojko.net/2009/02/27/thought-provoking-tdd-exercise-at-the-software-craftsmanship-conference/comment-page-1/#comment-58576 Niklas Gawell Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:35:20 +0000 http://gojko.net/?p=705#comment-58576 I find the idea to be interesting. The procedure is not all that unfamiliar with the way I usually work apart from 2 points (which I think are the main points of this exercise). That is points no 1 and 4. I can understand the need for point 1 to make the solution evolve from something really simple to a working but still simple solution. I cannot however see the great benefits of point 4. To write the code in the test and then move it. I have not yet tried it myself, so I would not rule out it, but I would like to hear some comments on why it is good/not good. I find the idea to be interesting. The procedure is not all that unfamiliar with the way I usually work apart from 2 points (which I think are the main points of this exercise).

That is points no 1 and 4. I can understand the need for point 1 to make the solution evolve from something really simple to a working but still simple solution. I cannot however see the great benefits of point 4. To write the code in the test and then move it. I have not yet tried it myself, so I would not rule out it, but I would like to hear some comments on why it is good/not good.

]]> By: gojko http://gojko.net/2009/02/27/thought-provoking-tdd-exercise-at-the-software-craftsmanship-conference/comment-page-1/#comment-56184 gojko Sun, 02 Aug 2009 03:33:23 +0000 http://gojko.net/?p=705#comment-56184 See <a href="http://gojko.net/2009/08/02/tdd-as-if-you-meant-it-revisited/" rel="nofollow">http://gojko.net/2009/08/02/tdd-as-if-you-meant-it-revisited/</a> for a repeat of this exercise, more information on exercise dynamics and some example code. See http://gojko.net/2009/08/02/tdd-as-if-you-meant-it-revisited/ for a repeat of this exercise, more information on exercise dynamics and some example code.

]]> By: gojko http://gojko.net/2009/02/27/thought-provoking-tdd-exercise-at-the-software-craftsmanship-conference/comment-page-1/#comment-56043 gojko Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:07:46 +0000 http://gojko.net/?p=705#comment-56043 Jules, try contacting Keith (@keithb_b on Twitter) directly and post that question to him. Jules, try contacting Keith (@keithb_b on Twitter) directly and post that question to him.

]]> By: Jules http://gojko.net/2009/02/27/thought-provoking-tdd-exercise-at-the-software-craftsmanship-conference/comment-page-1/#comment-55878 Jules Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:23:51 +0000 http://gojko.net/?p=705#comment-55878 I'm giving this a try, using the bowling game problem, and I've run up against an issue I'm not sure how to solve. I created my first three tests (the score after a single roll is the value of that roll, after the second roll when there's no strike the score is the two added together, after the third roll when there's no strike or spare the score is the three added together), which provided me with enough duplication to extract a method (getScore()) and a domain object (RollHistory) that I then moved getScore() to... but now I'm not sure how to continue. My next test would naturally be to calculate the score after the third roll when there's a spare in the first frame, but all the implementation changes would go in the existing method. Is this how this technique is supposed to work? I’m giving this a try, using the bowling game problem, and I’ve run up against an issue I’m not sure how to solve. I created my first three tests (the score after a single roll is the value of that roll, after the second roll when there’s no strike the score is the two added together, after the third roll when there’s no strike or spare the score is the three added together), which provided me with enough duplication to extract a method (getScore()) and a domain object (RollHistory) that I then moved getScore() to… but now I’m not sure how to continue. My next test would naturally be to calculate the score after the third roll when there’s a spare in the first frame, but all the implementation changes would go in the existing method. Is this how this technique is supposed to work?

]]>