Comments on: Announcing AutoTest.NET 0.1

By: Autotest for .NET by MicroArchitouch

Autotest for .NET by MicroArchitouch — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:11:27 +0000

RE: Announcing AutoTest.NET 0.1

Pingback from Autotest for .NET by MicroArchitouch

By: Scott Hanselman

Scott Hanselman — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:18:13 +0000

Finally, something for my QuadProc to do. Good stuff!

By: Si White

Si White — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:42:57 +0000

Good Stuff

By: JAmes avery

JAmes avery — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 02:07:36 +0000

Ryan,
Thanks for leaving a comment, it was your hurting code talk that first introduced me to autotest. I thought about building on top of autotest, but right now ironruby isn't ready to handle something like this and I didn't want to make ruby a requirement for running autotest.net. I know that sounds silly, but most .NET developers would shy away from installing ruby to run a small utility like this.

(I will look into it again though)

By: Ryan Davis

Ryan Davis — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 01:46:31 +0000

Why not just build on top of autotest?

By: Haacked

Haacked — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:55:34 +0000

It certainly creates an incentive for keeping your tests small and fast, both good TDD practices.

I like it. Use a stick to keep the TDDer in line.

By: Andrey Shchekin

Andrey Shchekin — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 12:04:06 +0000

Cool, I have thought about it just several days ago. But. The solution is not compiling due to Class1.cs reference in AutoTest.csproj (I am to lazy to submit a patch for it).

By the way, could you give me a submit access to the codebase? I can not promise that I'll do something, but I promise not to do anything stupid. My google name is ashmind.

By: JAmes avery

JAmes avery — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 18:05:28 +0000

Steve,
What I noticed using the ruby autotest is that it actually helped me get better about TDD. I would sometimes go for awhile without running my tests, or get out of the practice on a particularly tough problem, but seeing the tests run right away helped pull me back.

-James

By: Steve Bohlen

Steve Bohlen — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:56:11 +0000

James:

Interesting point(s); I can see how this would be true in the pure TDD scenario you point out (avoid the need to keep firing off my unit test runner after ea test-code-retest cycle).

Although I do often use a somewhat TDD approach, I don't fall quite as firmly into that camp as I might need to in order to enable me to leverage your tool better.

I think I will check it out tho -- perhaps it has a place in my toolset arsenal even if its not always left running while I'm working.

Neat idea, BTW, and thx for the clarification.

By: JAmes avery

JAmes avery — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:29:21 +0000

Steve,
This tool is definitely not for everyone. People who like to make changes to large groups of files, then check those changes in, then run their tests would HATE this utility.

This tool is for people practicing TRUE test driven development. In real test driven development you write a test, run the test, write some code, run the test, repeat, repeat. For this mode of working this tool works great.

-James