On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 3:32 PM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 04:54:07PM +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:16 PM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > > > I'm given to understand that this tight coupling is necessary for > > > performance. Are you saying that it could be unwound, or that > > > testing strategies mostly need to take it into account, or...? > > > > I'm just saying that we shouldn't expect to find a magic bullet test > > framework that solves all these problems. Without restructuring > > code, which I don't think is really feasible, we won't be able to > > have good unit test coverage for most existing code. > > > > It might be more practical to start using such a new tool for new > > code only. Then the new code could be structured in ways that allow > > the environment to be mocked more easily and the results observed > > more easily. > > Great! > > Do we have examples of such tools and code bases structured to > accommodate them that we'd like to use for reference, or at least for > inspiration? > +1 on that. It would be helpful to see successful examples. Especially ones written in C. I can't really figure out what success looks like just from reading the descriptions. Cheers, Jeff
