<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Theories on Gary Evans website</title>
    <link>http://www.taumuon.co.uk/categories/theories/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Theories on Gary Evans website</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-gb</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="http://www.taumuon.co.uk/categories/theories/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Theory driven development using Microsoft Pex Explorer</title>
      <link>http://www.taumuon.co.uk/blog/2009-01-11-theory-driven-development-using-microsoft-pex-explorer/</link>
      <pubDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.taumuon.co.uk/blog/2009-01-11-theory-driven-development-using-microsoft-pex-explorer/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;EDIT: NOTE that some of the contents of this post have been recently been edited thanks to great feedback from Peli de Halleux (&lt;a href=&#34;http://blog.dotnetwiki.org/%29&#34; target=&#34;_blank&#34; rel=&#34;noopener noreffer &#34;&gt;http://blog.dotnetwiki.org/)&lt;/a&gt;. He pointed me at a great post on Test Driven Development with Parameterized Unit Tests that he&amp;rsquo;d wrote here: &lt;a href=&#34;http://blog.dotnetwiki.org/TestDrivenDevelopmentWithParameterizedUnitTests.aspx&#34; target=&#34;_blank&#34; rel=&#34;noopener noreffer &#34;&gt;http://blog.dotnetwiki.org/TestDrivenDevelopmentWithParameterizedUnitTests.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I&amp;rsquo;ve been playing with Microsoft Pex to try out some theory-driven development. I&amp;rsquo;ve found it a great tool – actually much better than I was hoping, it&amp;rsquo;s found more bugs, and test cases, than using just unit testing or TDD (Test-Driven Development). It&amp;rsquo;s test-driven development on steroids!&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Comparing Theories to more traditional testing</title>
      <link>http://www.taumuon.co.uk/blog/2008-03-19-comparing-theories-to-more-traditional-testing/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.taumuon.co.uk/blog/2008-03-19-comparing-theories-to-more-traditional-testing/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;My old work colleague &lt;a href=&#34;http://www.agilemicroisv.com/&#34; target=&#34;_blank&#34; rel=&#34;noopener noreffer &#34;&gt;Tim&lt;/a&gt; has recently blogged about using NSpec to &lt;a href=&#34;http://www.agilemicroisv.com/2008/03/executable-spec.html&#34; target=&#34;_blank&#34; rel=&#34;noopener noreffer &#34;&gt;specify a stack&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;NSpec has the same sort of functionality as a unit testing framework such as NUnit. The terminology has been changed to get over the roadblock that some people have in adopting tests.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Theories actually give something over and above normal unit testing, and that&amp;rsquo;s what I&amp;rsquo;m going to look at in this blog post. I&amp;rsquo;m going to look at Tim&amp;rsquo;s example and show how using theories actually differ from Tim&amp;rsquo;s more traditional example.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Sample Theory Implementation as NUnit Extension.</title>
      <link>http://www.taumuon.co.uk/blog/2008-03-19-sample-theory-implementation-as-nunit-extension/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.taumuon.co.uk/blog/2008-03-19-sample-theory-implementation-as-nunit-extension/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;There&amp;rsquo;s been lots of comments bouncing around on the NUnit mailing list about what exactly constitutes a Theory, and what the desired features are, so I&amp;rsquo;ve created an NUnit extension with a sample Theory implementation - you can get it, Maslina version 1.0.0.0, from &lt;a href=&#34;http://www.taumuon.co.uk/rakija&#34; target=&#34;_blank&#34; rel=&#34;noopener noreffer &#34;&gt;www.taumuon.co.uk/rakija&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;xUnit.Net implements theories but does not have any in-built Assumption mechanism (you can effectively filter out bad data, which is the same as a filtering assumption). JUnit 4.4, I think, only filters out data - it doesn&amp;rsquo;t tell us anything about the state of an assumption.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Theories</title>
      <link>http://www.taumuon.co.uk/blog/2008-03-13-theories/</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.taumuon.co.uk/blog/2008-03-13-theories/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I&amp;rsquo;ve just released a slightly updated version of my NUnit extension for data-driven unit testing.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;There&amp;rsquo;s been a lot of discussion on the NUnit developer list recently regarding Theories - something new in JUnit and xUnit.Net, and it&amp;rsquo;s taken a while to discover why they&amp;rsquo;re so powerful (they&amp;rsquo;re superficially very similar to data-driven unit tests, and a lot of the differences are semantics).&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;First, there&amp;rsquo;s some good background on theories written by David Saff:&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&#34;http://shareandenjoy.saff.net/tdd-specifications.pdf&#34; target=&#34;_blank&#34; rel=&#34;noopener noreffer &#34;&gt;http://shareandenjoy.saff.net/tdd-specifications.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&#34;http://shareandenjoy.saff.net/2007/04/popper-and-junitfactory.html&#34; target=&#34;_blank&#34; rel=&#34;noopener noreffer &#34;&gt;http://shareandenjoy.saff.net/2007/04/popper-and-junitfactory.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xA;&lt;a href=&#34;http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/40090/1/MIT-CSAIL-TR-2008-002.pdf&#34; target=&#34;_blank&#34; rel=&#34;noopener noreffer &#34;&gt;http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/40090/1/MIT-CSAIL-TR-2008-002.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
