Developers cite prior art and alternative methodologies
2 Oct 31 11:27 AM · 11d ago · 3 comments · 1 source · development 2 of 4
Comments note that similar techniques have been used in projects like Aegis, Cargo, and the Rust compiler, with some preferring 'expected to fail' annotations over writing tests that pass with incorrect behavior.
“So you submit a change, which comes with a test (for new features, the test would fail because there's no feature to exercise), and aegis would only merge the change if the test-on-its-own failed and passes with the change.”
pgeorgiJordi Gómez Hernández Developer and writerKurt Kluever Developer (originator of technique)
The whole story postscomments the bright band is this development · numbered dots are the others · click one to jump
What people said 3 voices · verbatim
-
A couple, yeah. TDD would have you write a test asserting the *correct* behavior that initially fails, while this methodology has you write a test asserting the *incorrect* that initially passes, but must be fixed. Also, more broadly, TDD is a practice that asserts that any code change, from new features to bug fixes, should be preceded by the…
-
https://aegis.sourceforge.net/ went a step further and expected only the correct test, but had some rules on how it can backport it separate from the fix. So you submit a change, which comes with a test (for new features, the test would fail because there's no feature to exercise), and aegis would only merge the change if the test-on-its-own…
-
Is there a difference between this and TDD?
All 4 developments of The Kluever Maneuver: Writing Tests That Fail Before Fixing… →
LobstersHacker News