Ok, my set of tests for my application would include asserting that if
a given piece of functionality is going to cause a log message to
occur, that I validate the residual log files do contain the log
entries I expected as I expected them to be formatted.  If they don't 
then the application/library doesn't meet it's spec and/or
requirements. It's a bug and it needs to be resolved.

So, you would then have a front-row seat if something was affecting
the logger output.

And no, I don't believe there is any difference between building a
library and building an application ... it's all code that needs to be
tested and made sure it functions completely as designed.

I hope that answers you sufficiently.

j.


On 8/24/05, Bill Kelly <billk / cts.com> wrote:
> Jeff,
> 
> From: "Jeff Wood" <jeff.darklight / gmail.com>
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I appreciate the well-meaning nature of your replies, but I've
> been programming for 24 years and doing TDD semi-consistently
> for the last 5.
> 
> Again, I'd ask to see what sort of test you'd propose that would
> catch the problem I described.  (My post, the one you quoted, was
> about CGI, not the Logger.)
> 
> > To answer "how/why would you test this"... you should have tests in
> > place for your logging functionality.  The second something doesn't
> > come out right, you know that something is marring the system.
> > Debugging starts by walking the source of the packages you are using
> > and watching for references to the modified functionality... It's not
> > that hard to track down.
> 
> Thanks for the tip.   =D
> 
> 
> I also would ask again, Do you not consider libraries and applications
> different, where Ruby's beloved Openness is concerned?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
"So long, and thanks for all the fish"

Jeff Wood