"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net> writes:
> Well, that is covered in the system that I took that from. The full
> description is;
> 1. Identify a bug or missing feature.
> 2. Write the test that proves the bug or missing feature.
> 3. Run the test to prove that it fails.
> 4. Code until the test passes and then stop.
> 5. Run the regression test to make sure you didn't break something.
> This is taken from the principles of extreme programming.
The above is all fine as a development methodology. The question is
whether such tests are strictly a short-term development aid, or need to
be memorialized in a fashion that will cause every other developer to
re-execute them every time that developer needs to test his own work,
for the indefinite future. I tend to think there are not that many
tests that really deserve that status.
regards, tom lane
