14 Matching Annotations
  1. Dec 2020
  2. Sep 2020
  3. Jul 2020
    1. It would be nice if the tests weren't so implementation specific, but rather tested the essence of the functionality. I tried to make them less brittle but failed. To that end, re-writing all the tests in rspec would be (IMHO) a brilliant improvement and pave the way for better tests in the future and more flexibility in implementation.
  4. Apr 2020
    1. Devise-Two-Factor only worries about the backend, leaving the details of the integration up to you. This means that you're responsible for building the UI that drives the gem. While there is an example Rails application included in the gem, it is important to remember that this gem is intentionally very open-ended, and you should build a user experience which fits your individual application.
  5. Nov 2019
    1. it doesn't even render in-file components. For example, the <Fade /> component we have above is an implementation detail of the <HiddenMessage /> component, but because we're shallow rendering <Fade /> isn't rendered so changes to that component could break our application but not our test. That's a major issue in my mind and is evidence to me that we're testing implementation details.
    2. The reason this kind of test fails those considerations is because it's testing irrelevant implementation details. The user doesn't care one bit what things are called. In fact, that test doesn't even verify that the message is hidden properly when the show state is false or shown when the show state is true. So not only does the test not do a great job keeping us safe from breakages, it's also flakey and doesn't actually test the reason the component exists in the first place.
    3. I could rename toggle to handleButtonClick (and update the corresponding onClick reference). My test breaks despite this being a refactor.
    4. I could mistakenly set onClick of the button to this.tgogle instead of this.toggle. My test continues to work, but my component is broken.
    5. Will this test break when there's a mistake that would break the component in production?Will this test continue to work when there's a fully backward compatible refactor of the component?
    1. Why is testing implementation details bad?There are two distinct reasons that it's important to avoid testing implementation details. Tests which test implementation details:Can break when you refactor application code. False negativesMay not fail when you break application code. False positives
    1. But far too often, I see tests which are testing implementation details (read this before continuing if you haven't already). When you do this, you introduce a third user. The developer user and the end user are really all that matters for this component. So long as it serves those two, then it has a reason to exist. And when you're maintaining the component you need to keep those two users in mind to make sure that if you break the contract with them, you do something to handle that change.But as soon as you start testing things which your developer user and end user don't know or care about (implementation details), you add a third testing user, you're now having to keep that third user in your head and make sure you account for changes that affect the testing user as well.
    1. You want to write maintainable tests for your React components. As a part of this goal, you want your tests to avoid including implementation details of your components and rather focus on making your tests give you the confidence for which they are intended. As part of this, you want your testbase to be maintainable in the long run so refactors of your components (changes to implementation but not functionality) don't break your tests and slow you and your team down.
  6. Jan 2014
    1. I regret that the documentation does not focus on what is most relevant; by focusing on a largely irrelevant implementation detail, we enlarge the importance of that implementation detail and obscure the importance of what makes a value type semantically useful. I dearly wish that all those articles explaining what “the stack” is would instead spend time explaining what exactly “copied by value” means and how misunderstanding or misusing “copy by value” can cause bugs.

      Documentation should focus on semantically useful descriptions; another accompanying document (or annotation) can provide relevant implementation details upon request, but that deeper level of detail should be left out by default to avoid enlarging the importance of less relevant things.