<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:series="http://unfoldingneurons.com/" > <channel><title>Comments on: Peer Review: Testable Code And Architecture</title> <atom:link href="http://www.brandonsavage.net/peer-review-testable-code-and-architecture/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.brandonsavage.net/peer-review-testable-code-and-architecture/</link> <description>The personal blog of Brandon Savage. Contains entries of a personal and professional nature focusing on PHP, Apple, LAMP, MySQL and Washington, DC.</description> <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:10:45 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator> <item><title>By: Brandon Savage</title><link>http://www.brandonsavage.net/peer-review-testable-code-and-architecture/#comment-1177</link> <dc:creator>Brandon Savage</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:55:55 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.brandonsavage.net/?p=597#comment-1177</guid> <description>Thanks Jeff. I did in the final post (coming on Monday).</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Jeff. I did in the final post (coming on Monday).</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Jeff Carouth</title><link>http://www.brandonsavage.net/peer-review-testable-code-and-architecture/#comment-1149</link> <dc:creator>Jeff Carouth</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:35:29 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.brandonsavage.net/?p=597#comment-1149</guid> <description>Since you removed the testing bit from the tweet() method you should also remove the documentation from the corresponding docblock. ;)I could not agree more on having a test suite and also building and improving the test suite with each bugfix. On my team it is required to first create a test case to reproduce the bug. I usually get dirty looks from developers when I say to do this mainly because the process can be tedious. However, it would be impossible to count the number of times that a &quot;simple bug fix&quot; turned out to uncover some more complex issues when taking the time to thoroughly and consistently reproduce the bug with a test case.If your project doesn&#039;t have any unit tests yet, that&#039;s ok. When you fix a bug is a great time to start creating one. ;)</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since you removed the testing bit from the tweet() method you should also remove the documentation from the corresponding docblock. ;)</p><p>I could not agree more on having a test suite and also building and improving the test suite with each bugfix. On my team it is required to first create a test case to reproduce the bug. I usually get dirty looks from developers when I say to do this mainly because the process can be tedious. However, it would be impossible to count the number of times that a &#8220;simple bug fix&#8221; turned out to uncover some more complex issues when taking the time to thoroughly and consistently reproduce the bug with a test case.</p><p>If your project doesn&#8217;t have any unit tests yet, that&#8217;s ok. When you fix a bug is a great time to start creating one. ;)</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Brandon Savage</title><link>http://www.brandonsavage.net/peer-review-testable-code-and-architecture/#comment-1148</link> <dc:creator>Brandon Savage</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:42:55 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.brandonsavage.net/?p=597#comment-1148</guid> <description>You&#039;re right! +1. I updated the docblock and it&#039;s now correct.This is a great point, and it shows the need for something like CodeSniffer to help ferret out those issues. CodeSniffer would have picked that up right away. I recommend a post-commit hook that runs it, and emails errors to the team for correction (a PHP lint hook should run on the pre-commit side).CodeSniffer comes with a bunch of attachments, but you can also write your own standards. It&#039;s part of PEAR, so you can get it that way. http://pear.php.net/package/PHP_CodeSniffer/</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re right! +1. I updated the docblock and it&#8217;s now correct.</p><p>This is a great point, and it shows the need for something like CodeSniffer to help ferret out those issues. CodeSniffer would have picked that up right away. I recommend a post-commit hook that runs it, and emails errors to the team for correction (a PHP lint hook should run on the pre-commit side).</p><p>CodeSniffer comes with a bunch of attachments, but you can also write your own standards. It&#8217;s part of PEAR, so you can get it that way. <a href="http://pear.php.net/package/PHP_CodeSniffer/" rel="nofollow">http://pear.php.net/package/PHP_CodeSniffer/</a></p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Bryan Zarzuela</title><link>http://www.brandonsavage.net/peer-review-testable-code-and-architecture/#comment-1141</link> <dc:creator>Bryan Zarzuela</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:19:26 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.brandonsavage.net/?p=597#comment-1141</guid> <description>The constructor parameters in line 35 doesn&#039;t match the phpdoc block</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The constructor parameters in line 35 doesn&#8217;t match the phpdoc block</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using apc (user agent is rejected)
Database Caching 44/52 queries in 0.080 seconds using disk

Served from: www.brandonsavage.net @ 2010-09-10 12:29:42 -->