<?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>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:36:33 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</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: basic (Feed is rejected)
Page Caching using disk: enhanced (User agent is rejected)
Database Caching 4/11 queries in 0.004 seconds using disk: basic
Content Delivery Network via Amazon Web Services: S3: files.brandonsavage.net.s3.amazonaws.com

Served from: www.brandonsavage.net @ 2012-02-07 04:55:36 -->
