Turning the TablesDavid contends that Fit's table–oriented approach affords large tests, with lots of information in each test. He's right. I like the tables because most of the automated testing gigs that I've done have involved financial trading systems and the users of those eat, drink, and breath spreadsheets. I love that I can write a fixture that will directly parse rows off a spreadsheet built by a real trader to show the sort of thing that they mean when they say that the proposed system should blah blah blah. The issue that David sees is that these rows probably contain information that is, variously: redundant, duplicated, irrelevant, obfuscatory and various other epithets. He's right, often they do.
What David seems to want is a larger number of smaller, simpler tests. I don't immediately agree that more, simpler things to deal with all together is easier than fewer, more complex things, but that's another story. And these smaller, simpler tests would have the principle virtue that they more nearly capture a single functional dependency. That's a good thing to have. These tests would capture all and only the information required to exercise the function being tested for. This would indeed be an excellent starting point for implementation.
There's only one problem: such tests are further away from the users' world and close to the programmers' . All that stuff about duplication and redundancy is programmer's talk. And that's fair enough. And its not enough. I see David's style of test as somewhat intermediate between unit tests and what I want, which is executable examples in the users' language. When constructing these small, focussed tests we're already doing abstraction, and I don't want to make my users do that. Not just yet, anyway.
So then I realised where the real disagreement was. The big, cumbersome, Fit style tests are very likely too complicated and involved to be a good starting point for development. And I don't want them to be that. If they are, as I've suggested, gauges, then they serve only to tell the developers whether or not their users' goals have been met. The understanding of the domain required to write the code will, can (should?) come from elsewhere.
Suck it and SeeAnd this is how gauges are used in fabrication. You don't work anything out from a gauges. What you do is apply it to see if the workpiece is within tolerance or not. And then you trim a bit off, or build a bit up, or bend it a bit more, or whatever, a re–apply the gauge. And repeat. And it doesn't really matter how complicated an object the gauge itself is (or how hard it was to make—and it's really hard to make good gauges), because it is used as if it were both atomic and a given. It's also made once, and used again and again and again and again...
Until this very illuminating conversation with David I hadn't really fully realised myself quite the full implications of the gauge metaphor. It actually implies something potentially quite deep about how these artifacts are built, used and managed. Something I need to think about some more.
Oh, and when (as we should) we start to produce exactly those finer–grained, simpler, more focussed tests that David rightly promotes, and we find out that the users' understanding of their world is all denormalised and stuff, what interesting conversations we can have with them then about how their world really works, it turns out.
Might even uncover the odd onion in the varnish. But let's not forget that having the varnish (with onion) is more valuable to them than getting rid of the onion.