#: Jeff Wood changed the world a bit at a time by saying on  8/24/2005 7:06 PM :#
> The truely iterative & testing-complete way to build software is to
> design and implement your tests before you write your code.  When all
> of your tests pass, you're done...
> 
> ... If you built your system like that, you should have tests for each
> and every action on your classes ... and the first time somebody elses
> modifications has an affect on your functionality and expected output,
> you should know about it.
> 
> j.
> 

Why running away from the idea of the original mail? Having the tests may solve the problem. Or they 
may not: what if your tests are behaving correctly just because of the wrongly handled code outside 
of your control? Should you start to develop tests for that lib too? No.

When you expect something from a lib you take it as documented. If that lib does something 
undercover it should document it. It's simple. The tests have their power, but they are not the 
silver bullet.

respectfully,
:alex |.::the_mindstorm::.|

> On 8/24/05, Bill Kelly <billk / cts.com> wrote:
>> From: "Jeff Wood" <jeff.darklight / gmail.com>
>> >
>> > You shouldn't be afraid of having power.  That's why you have tests.
>> > You do have tests, right? ... right??? ... RIGHT !!?!?!?!??!
>> 
>> Dudes, I do have tests.  How in blazes would you write a test
>> to catch the problem I described?  (Please show your work.  :)
>> And why would you ever think to do so?
>> 
>> It's not being afraid of having power.  In my own applications,
>> I'll exploit any and every cool capability of Ruby I feel like.
>> 
>> But when I personally write a module I view as a library I'd
>> like others to find useful, I take a decidedly more conservative
>> approach - deliberately.
>> 
>> Do you not consider libraries and applications different, where
>> Ruby's beloved Openness is concerned?
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>