« Holiday Special - The office, Typemock-style | Main | Episode 6 - Analyze This! »
Wednesday
Dec162009

Episode 7 - Survivors

7th episode – one more than Star Wars, and quality-wise it’s 7-3 for us!

This time we start with Paul W Homer’s response to our last cast (see, we actually respond!). We talk about why Rocky Lhotka moved from using NUnit to MSTest. We then pick on Mark Striebeck from Google on the usefulness of a unit test(via Luca Minudel), and on the Test Mercenaries (via Gojko Adzic).

We then talk about “Only mock types you own”, as interpreted by Liz Douglas and Mark Needham (the article they refer to is “Mock Roles, Not Objects”). And we end the show on time (like George Lucas should have) with how to run an agile project with manual testing, by David Babicz.

Please leave us comments, and/or send us emails (love, not hate, we find the love ones easy to digest) on webcast@typemock.com. And spread the word, we like a big audience.

Audio only download (mp3)

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    The fellas at TypeMock recently discussed “Mocking only what you own” in response to a cogent though not very helpful post from normally lucid author Mark Needham. Mark basically said don’t mock external dependencies SUCH AS Hibernate...

Reader Comments (2)

Hi Gil, nice webcast !

During the learning process of doing unit testing and tdd, in every team soon or later it come the time to think about which brittle test of the test suite deserve the investment of time to fix it and which deserve to be deleted and instead use the time to write new better tests.

Deleting a unit test at the first time look like a subversive, crazy idea, but it lead the team to think and reflect about how to write better unit tests that generate the highest possible value. And it is the responsibility of the coach to help the team in this learning process.

The concept of TROI (Tests Return On Investment) and the historical data collected by Google about a test failure and it's fix is just a way to start to do this.

My full reply here

December 19, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterLuca Minudel

Gil-
Thanks for the look at my blog! I enjoyed the webcast. Yes, manual testing with Agile can work. It's not enacting waterfall, though. I outline a way to implement Agile if you have the constraint of manual testing, i.e. no available test automation. And it's important to note that I'm not talking about testing one iteration behind development, I'm talking about testing at the same time with just an overlap into my planning week to accommodate the realities of manual testing and still be able to implement Agile. I updated my blog post with a graphic to illustrate this better.

-Dave

December 30, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterDavid Babicz

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>