rejoice

[Ted Dubois <jyi@crazyballoons.it>]

Its class is generally an implementation of an interface or a subclass
of some class, either generated dynamically or statically coded.
After all, the overridden saveCheese method in the "mock" calls the
superclass' method, right? I was ruthelessly refactoring the entire
codebase to improve the design.
I just wanted to argue that TDD does not slow you down.
The team therefore decided to mock out the hibernate DAOs in the tests.
-Like always doing the simplest thing and continuosly refactor the
code.
An easy to use and powerful attributes package for the Java platofrm.
This is because with TDD you don't write code you "think you might
need". Knowing when you're done saves time. He also seems to ignore the
benefits of TDD.
At the end of the day that will bring us code that is easier to
maintain. So we can mock IDEA in IDEA? The good one is to keep the tests
simple. -A fairly common combination of technologies and patterns.
Its class is generally an implementation of an interface or a subclass
of some class, either generated dynamically or statically coded. It all
started when I asked Paul one night whether he had heard of Inversion of
Control. In your own language if it makes you feel better. Specifically,
if the superclass is refactored, there is no guarantee that the test is
still valid.
That would have been absolutely impossible without the extensive test
suite we had built up by then.
If you do, you're not testing the real thing. This action is now a
PicoComponent, honouring constructor based dependency injection.
Much of the nice modular design we have today is owed to him.
Being able to refactor is essential in order to obtain a maintainable
and well designed codebase. Sometimes it's Java, sometimes it's .
Probably because I'm an XP head.