![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
juan_gandhi So, if you think you call a function in your code, and this function returns current time, or a random number... IT'S NOT A FUNCTION. Your code is function of "random number", or "time".
So, if your code is written as something that retrieves this kind of data, to test your code, you should provide that data. Not just today, but try the time, like 10 years from now. As to "random", You provide the randomness. If your code cannot be fixed to behave as a function of those inputs, make your "random stream" or "time stream" not hard-coded, but substitutable. Mockable. And mock it in your tests. MAKE SURE that you don't provide just happy-path data. Provide anything. A sequence of 100 numbers 4 for random. Time that is 10 years from now. Or even 30 yeas from now.
Make sure that your tests don't depend on anything. Because test Must Be Reproducible.
All these things, I know, are obvious to some, and not obvious to others.
So, if your code is written as something that retrieves this kind of data, to test your code, you should provide that data. Not just today, but try the time, like 10 years from now. As to "random", You provide the randomness. If your code cannot be fixed to behave as a function of those inputs, make your "random stream" or "time stream" not hard-coded, but substitutable. Mockable. And mock it in your tests. MAKE SURE that you don't provide just happy-path data. Provide anything. A sequence of 100 numbers 4 for random. Time that is 10 years from now. Or even 30 yeas from now.
Make sure that your tests don't depend on anything. Because test Must Be Reproducible.
All these things, I know, are obvious to some, and not obvious to others.
If you still have questions, ask. But don't argue. Because what I say is math. Unless you have another math (some people do), or another logic (there's plenty of them), please don't argue.
I'd be glad to see how all this changes if logic is e.g. linear.
Re: "то есть" trick
Date: 2020-08-26 03:45 pm (UTC)I am not inclined to answer your questions because you are not inclined to answer mine. Although by saying this I've just answered one of yours.
> Is that what you are doing?
This is a "то есть" trick of yours, so the best I can do is ignore.
Expecting answers to unasked questions
Date: 2020-08-26 06:09 pm (UTC)Yes.
That suggests that you are avoiding reaching clarity in our communication.
> because
That causality claim is wrong.
> you are not inclined to answer mine
This your hypothesis is wrong.
I am, actually, inclined to answer your questions, but you did not ask any questions [at least in the last 8 your replies to me].
Re: Expecting answers to unasked questions
Date: 2020-08-27 06:10 am (UTC)Re: Expecting answers to unasked questions
Date: 2020-08-27 04:59 pm (UTC)Re: "то есть" trick
Date: 2020-08-26 06:16 pm (UTC)> This is a "то есть" trick of yours
What is "то есть" trick?
How is that trick relevant to my question?
> the best I can do is ignore
Nope.
Not entering discussion in the first place -- is a much better for saving time.
Answering the question is the best for reaching clarity.
Entering discussion and then not answer clarifying questions that pop up in that discussion -- is, usually, a bad choice. I disrespect such behavior.