Talk:Tester-driven development

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computer science (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Valid Terminology?[edit]

I doubt that "Tester Driven Development" is a valid term, or that it provides any value. One google-hit outside Wikipedia, and on that page the meaning is different from here. Maybe the article should be removed? Epim 14:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's an actual term, it looks like it comes from a patterns book. See the anti-pattern list. I think a section about the pattern on the TDD page would be interesting (provides an opposing POV), but I don't want to write it without reading the book or reviewing the SE literature to learn about the pattern. Maybe the book isn't noteworthy enough to list all the patterns in it, which seems to be the larger issue here. --Chris Pickett 16:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that one book is enough to make this a term that should be widely adopted, and written in Wikipedia. Please provide at least two more respected instances.
My main concerns with the term is that:
  • it is easily confused with Test-Driven Development
  • it gives negative connotations for software testers
  • the name don't consider other causes for long testing phases
  • the description don't see any potential positive aspects of tester-drive (making something good of something bad)
Epim 10:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The term isn't widespread (only 78 google hits, many of which are wikipedia itself, nor had I heard it myself). I'd delete this article as not notable, myself. It doesn't matter a whole lot, for wikipedia purposes, whether it is a good term, but it matters a lot whether there are verifiable sources which define the term and demonstrate its use in more than one or two places. Right now, this article has no sources. Kingdon 16:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the phrase is currently widespread enough to have its own article, but the paragraphs themselves have some value. Maybe it could be made part of an anti-patterns in software testing article, where we could use it along with other classic mistakes:
  • not allocating any time/resources for testing
  • leaving testing until the end, and assuming the code works. That is, assuming all tests pass first time.
  • writing tests to show the app works, rather than break the app.
  • not testing in an environemnt that resembles production.
And so on. SteveLoughran 10:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)