﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Ayende @ Rahien</title><link>http://ayende.com</link><description>Ayende @ Rahien</description><copyright>Copyright (C) Ayende Rahien  2004 - 2021 (c) 2026</copyright><ttl>60</ttl><item><title>Ayende Rahien commented on What should you test?</title><description>alberto ,
  
Yes, absolutely.
  
I fixed the post, thanks for noticing.
</description><link>http://ayende.com/3029/what-should-you-test#comment3</link><guid>http://ayende.com/3029/what-should-you-test#comment3</guid><pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:54:58 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Thomas Eyde commented on What should you test?</title><description>I agree with your conclusion that "Tests that validate the mechanics...are brittle".
  
  
Unfortunate for me, that's the kinds of tests I ended up with whenever I went for a mocking framework. There must be a secret ingredient somewhere...
</description><link>http://ayende.com/3029/what-should-you-test#comment2</link><guid>http://ayende.com/3029/what-should-you-test#comment2</guid><pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:44:46 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>alberto commented on What should you test?</title><description>"looks like I am trying to specify the behavior of the code under test, and that is a big mistake."
  
I think you messed it up a little here, as you then say:
  
"Now what I am testing is behavior, not mechanics."
  
  
You want to specify behaviour, but not implementation.
</description><link>http://ayende.com/3029/what-should-you-test#comment1</link><guid>http://ayende.com/3029/what-should-you-test#comment1</guid><pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:09:30 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>