<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mock Roles not Objects, live and in person.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.m3p.co.uk/blog/2009/03/08/mock-roles-not-objects-live-and-in-person/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.m3p.co.uk/blog/2009/03/08/mock-roles-not-objects-live-and-in-person/</link>
	<description>Working software daily</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:22:43 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mock Objects &#171; Liz Douglass</title>
		<link>http://www.m3p.co.uk/blog/2009/03/08/mock-roles-not-objects-live-and-in-person/comment-page-1/#comment-690</link>
		<dc:creator>Mock Objects &#171; Liz Douglass</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:31:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.m3p.co.uk/blog/2009/03/08/mock-roles-not-objects-live-and-in-person/#comment-690</guid>
		<description>[...] &#8220;Specify as little as possible in a test&#8221;&#8230;&#8221;One of the risks with TDD is that tests become &#8216;brittle&#8217;, that is they fail when a programmer makes unrelated changes to application code.&#8221; This is on of the most common criticisms of TDD that I have heard from other developers. The paper goes onto say that the cause is that &#8220;&#8230;(the tests) have been over-specfied to check features that are an artefact of implementation, not an expression of some requirement in the object.&#8221; I&#8217;ve written tests that fall into in this category and I think it can be quite challenging to avoid doing so. Steve Freeman, one of the authors of the paper, blogged about this situation happening in a Coding Dojo earlier this year. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] &#8220;Specify as little as possible in a test&#8221;&#8230;&#8221;One of the risks with <span class="caps">TDD </span>is that tests become &#8216;brittle&#8217;, that is they fail when a programmer makes unrelated changes to application code.&#8221; This is on of the most common criticisms of <span class="caps">TDD </span>that I have heard from other developers. The paper goes onto say that the cause is that &#8220;&#8230;(the tests) have been over-specfied to check features that are an artefact of implementation, not an expression of some requirement in the object.&#8221; I&#8217;ve written tests that fall into in this category and I think it can be quite challenging to avoid doing so. Steve Freeman, one of the authors of the paper, blogged about this situation happening in a Coding Dojo earlier this year. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mock Roles not Objects Live On Tour at me.andering</title>
		<link>http://www.m3p.co.uk/blog/2009/03/08/mock-roles-not-objects-live-and-in-person/comment-page-1/#comment-472</link>
		<dc:creator>Mock Roles not Objects Live On Tour at me.andering</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:49:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.m3p.co.uk/blog/2009/03/08/mock-roles-not-objects-live-and-in-person/#comment-472</guid>
		<description>[...] Steve Freeman did a great writeup of the session Marc Evers and I hosted at the Software Craftsmanship Conference: Mock Roles not Objects, live and in person. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Steve Freeman did a great writeup of the session Marc Evers and I hosted at the Software Craftsmanship Conference: Mock Roles not Objects, live and in person. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
