▲ | MoreQARespect 5 days ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
I literally do the diametric opposite of you and it works extremely well. Im weirded out by your comment. Writing tests that couple to low level implementation details was something I thought most people did accidentally before giving up on TDD, not intentionally. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | nyrikki 5 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
It isn't coupling low level implementation details, it is writing tests based on input and output of the unit under test. The expected output from a unit, given an input is not an implementation detail, unless you have some very different definition of implementation detail than I. Testing the unit under test produces the expected outputs from a set of inputs implies nothing about implementation details at all. It is also a concept older than dirt: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221329933_Iterative... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|