http://ayende.comAyende @ RahienCopyright (C) Ayende Rahien 2004 - 2021 (c) 202660@Roger - the only thing you need to refactor code that doesn't have tests is some combination of the following (optimally all three, but certainly not a necessity): another pair of eyeballs, a modicum of common sense, and/or a minimum degree of caution. You certainly don't need to bring tools like TypeMock to the table to get the job done. This may sound harsh, but here's the thing I see TypeMock used to make more than anything else: excuses. Excuses of all sorts, but primarily excuses for not making concerted efforts to improve the design (and therefore the maintainability among a million other things) of existing code. http://ayende.com/3323/use-the-right-tool-for-the-job#comment2http://ayende.com/3323/use-the-right-tool-for-the-job#comment2Tue, 20 May 2008 01:01:04 GMT>>"Here is the deal, I don't think that you should eliminate code refactoring" Incase you don't already have any tests, then you don't want to do much refactoring in fear of breaking the existing code. So by allowing testing w/o change, you can start writing tests directly. Those new tests will then allow you to start refactor your code w/o having to worry about breaking anything. So this approach could allow you to get a refactored testable codebase faster than if you would have to start refactoring upfront. Just my 2 cents.. http://ayende.com/3323/use-the-right-tool-for-the-job#comment1http://ayende.com/3323/use-the-right-tool-for-the-job#comment1Mon, 19 May 2008 20:14:17 GMT