Posts Tagged ‘testing strategies’
This IEEE paper finds out during their research that test -first method of programming gives more productivity then any other method. They wrote that formalizing a piece of functionality as a test and code it in such a way that the test passes.
“We found that test-first students on average wrote more tests and, in turn, students who wrote more tests tended to be more productive. We also observed that the minimum quality increased linearly with the number of programmer tests, independent of the development strategy employed.”
Paper explains why TDD offers more productivity:
We believe that the observed productivity advantage of Test-First subjects is due to a number of synergistic effects:
- Better task understanding. Writing a test before implementing the underlying functionality requires
the programmer to express the functionality unambiguously.
- Better task focus. Test-First advances one test case at a time. A single test case has a limited scope. Thus, the programmer is engaged in a decomposition process in which larger pieces of functionality are broken down to smaller, more manageable chunks. While developing the functionality for a single test, the cognitive load of the programmer is lower.
- Faster learning. Less productive and coarser decomposition strategies are quickly abandoned in favor of more productive, finer ones.
- Lower rework effort. Since the scope of a single test is limited, when the test fails, rework is easier. When rework immediately follows a short burst of testing and implementation activity, the problem context is still fresh in the programmer’s mind. With a high number of focused tests, when a test fails, the root cause is more easily pinpointed. In addition, more frequent regression testing shortens the feedback cycle. When new functionality interferes with old functionality, this situation is revealed faster. Small problems are detected before they become serious and costly.
Test-First also tends to increase the variation in productivity. This effect is attributed to the relative difficulty of the technique, which is supported by the subjects’ responses to the post-questionnaire and by the observation that higher skill subjects were able to achieve more significant productivity benefits.
To learn more read the full paper available in downloadable pdf.