Test Driven Development Roman Numerals phpUnit-testing a controller in Ruby on RailsTest Driven Development, Mocking & Unit-testingUnit testing event triggeringCalculate the physical centreSchedule class (exercise for test driven development)Karate Chop KataTDD - Kata - String CalculatorTest Driven Development with DjangoPython Calculator Test Driven DevelopmentFizz Buzz Test Driven Development
How should I ask for a "pint" in countries that use metric?
Findminimum of Integral
Was it ever illegal to name a pig "Napoleon" in France?
Why do airports remove/realign runways?
Computer name naming convention for security
What was the nature of the known bugs in the Space Shuttle software?
How to slice a string input at a certain unknown index
How was the website able to tell my credit card was wrong before it processed it?
Can Jimmy hang on his rope?
Is homosexuality or bisexuality allowed for women?
What does the multimeter dial do internally?
Writing an ace/aro character?
Draw a diagram with rectangles
Can the word "desk" be used as a verb?
What kind of Chinook helicopter/airplane hybrid is this?
What exactly is a "murder hobo"?
Array or vector? Two dimensional array or matrix?
What do you call a situation where you have choices but no good choice?
Why am I getting unevenly-spread results when using $RANDOM?
Moving millions of files to a different directory with specfic name patterns
Is it possible for a character at any level to cast all 44 Cantrips in one week without Magic Items?
Why do people prefer metropolitan areas, considering monsters and villains?
How do ballistic trajectories work in a ring world?
How can I use my cell phone's light as a reading light?
Test Driven Development Roman Numerals php
Unit-testing a controller in Ruby on RailsTest Driven Development, Mocking & Unit-testingUnit testing event triggeringCalculate the physical centreSchedule class (exercise for test driven development)Karate Chop KataTDD - Kata - String CalculatorTest Driven Development with DjangoPython Calculator Test Driven DevelopmentFizz Buzz Test Driven Development
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
I just learned about Test Driven Development on a podcast yesterday. So I decided to try it out today by writing a roman numerals to integer converter (per their suggestion). I've never written Unit Tests before today.
My process
I wrote the test class with the runAll()
function, then I started writing my tests one at a time, from top to bottom, if you look at the RomanTest class below.
Between each chunk, I significantly changed the intVal()
method of RMC
.
- testI
through testM
, I merely checked hard-coded values in an array
- testII
through testXVII
, I looped over all the chars and added values together
- testIV
through testIIX
required a conditional modification to intVal()
- testXXXIX
(to the end) took a complete rewrite of intVal()
leading to the code posted below
Before writing the next test, I always confirmed the previous test was passing. Except, I wrote testL
-testM
all at once as those were VERY simple after getting testI-textX
working.
At points, when re-writing intVal
, my older tests broke. Then I would get all my tests passing again before continuing to the next test.
I never altered any previous tests when trying to get the new tests passing.
My questions:
1.) Is this a good work flow for TDD? If not, what could I improve?
2.) Did I run enough tests? Do I need to write more?
3.) Is it okay that, during intVal()
re-writes, previous tests broke? (considering I got them all passing again before moving to the next test)
I am asking for a review of my TDD code & process.
class RomanTest
public function runAll()
echo '<pre>'."n";
$methods = get_class_methods($this);
foreach ($methods as $method)
if ($method=='runAll')continue;
$mo = $method;
while (strlen($mo)<15)
$mo .='-';
echo "<b>$mo:</b> ";
echo $this->$method() ? 'true' : 'false';
echo "<br>n";
echo "n</pre>";
public function testI()
$rmc = new RMC("I");
if ($rmc->intVal()===1)
return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testV()
$rmc = new RMC("V");
if ($rmc->intVal()===5)
return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testX()
$rmc = new RMC("X");
if ($rmc->intVal()===10)return TRUE;
else return FALSE;
public function testL()
$rmc = new RMC("L");
if ($rmc->intVal()===50)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testC()
$rmc = new RMC("C");
if ($rmc->intVal()===100)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testD()
$rmc = new RMC("D");
if ($rmc->intVal()===500)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testM()
$rmc = new RMC("M");
if ($rmc->intVal()===1000)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testII()
$rmc = new RMC("II");
if ($rmc->intVal()===2)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testIII()
$rmc = new RMC("III");
if ($rmc->intVal()===3)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testVI()
$rmc = new RMC("VI");
if ($rmc->intVal()===6)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testVII()
$rmc = new RMC("VII");
if ($rmc->intVal()===7)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testXVII()
$rmc = new RMC("XVII");
if ($rmc->intVal()===17)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testIV()
$rmc = new RMC("IV");
return ($rmc->intVal()===4);
public function testIIV()
$rmc = new RMC("IIV");
return ($rmc->intVal()===3);
public function testIIX()
$rmc = new RMC("IIX");
return ($rmc->intVal()===8);
public function testXXXIX()
$rmc = new RMC("XXXIX");
return ($rmc->intVal()===39);
public function testXXXIIX()
$rmc = new RMC("XXXIIX");
return ($rmc->intVal()===38);
public function testMMMCMXCIX()
return (new RMC("MMMCMXCIX"))->intVal()===3999;
public function testMLXVI()
return (new RMC("MLXVI"))->intVal()===1066;
class RMC
private $numerals;
private $vals = [
'I' => 1,
'V' => 5,
'X' => 10,
'L' => 50,
'C' => 100,
'D' => 500,
'M' => 1000,
];
public function __construct($numerals)
$this->numerals = $numerals;
public function intVal()
$tot = 0;
$lastTot = 0;
$lastVal = 0;
foreach (array_reverse(str_split($this->numerals)) as $nml)
$value = $this->vals[$nml];
if ($lastVal<=$value)
$tot +=$value;
$lastVal = $value;
else if ($lastVal>$value)
$tot -= $value;
$lastTot = $tot;
return $tot;
And to run it:
$test = new RomanTest();
$test->runAll();
php unit-testing
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I just learned about Test Driven Development on a podcast yesterday. So I decided to try it out today by writing a roman numerals to integer converter (per their suggestion). I've never written Unit Tests before today.
My process
I wrote the test class with the runAll()
function, then I started writing my tests one at a time, from top to bottom, if you look at the RomanTest class below.
Between each chunk, I significantly changed the intVal()
method of RMC
.
- testI
through testM
, I merely checked hard-coded values in an array
- testII
through testXVII
, I looped over all the chars and added values together
- testIV
through testIIX
required a conditional modification to intVal()
- testXXXIX
(to the end) took a complete rewrite of intVal()
leading to the code posted below
Before writing the next test, I always confirmed the previous test was passing. Except, I wrote testL
-testM
all at once as those were VERY simple after getting testI-textX
working.
At points, when re-writing intVal
, my older tests broke. Then I would get all my tests passing again before continuing to the next test.
I never altered any previous tests when trying to get the new tests passing.
My questions:
1.) Is this a good work flow for TDD? If not, what could I improve?
2.) Did I run enough tests? Do I need to write more?
3.) Is it okay that, during intVal()
re-writes, previous tests broke? (considering I got them all passing again before moving to the next test)
I am asking for a review of my TDD code & process.
class RomanTest
public function runAll()
echo '<pre>'."n";
$methods = get_class_methods($this);
foreach ($methods as $method)
if ($method=='runAll')continue;
$mo = $method;
while (strlen($mo)<15)
$mo .='-';
echo "<b>$mo:</b> ";
echo $this->$method() ? 'true' : 'false';
echo "<br>n";
echo "n</pre>";
public function testI()
$rmc = new RMC("I");
if ($rmc->intVal()===1)
return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testV()
$rmc = new RMC("V");
if ($rmc->intVal()===5)
return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testX()
$rmc = new RMC("X");
if ($rmc->intVal()===10)return TRUE;
else return FALSE;
public function testL()
$rmc = new RMC("L");
if ($rmc->intVal()===50)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testC()
$rmc = new RMC("C");
if ($rmc->intVal()===100)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testD()
$rmc = new RMC("D");
if ($rmc->intVal()===500)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testM()
$rmc = new RMC("M");
if ($rmc->intVal()===1000)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testII()
$rmc = new RMC("II");
if ($rmc->intVal()===2)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testIII()
$rmc = new RMC("III");
if ($rmc->intVal()===3)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testVI()
$rmc = new RMC("VI");
if ($rmc->intVal()===6)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testVII()
$rmc = new RMC("VII");
if ($rmc->intVal()===7)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testXVII()
$rmc = new RMC("XVII");
if ($rmc->intVal()===17)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testIV()
$rmc = new RMC("IV");
return ($rmc->intVal()===4);
public function testIIV()
$rmc = new RMC("IIV");
return ($rmc->intVal()===3);
public function testIIX()
$rmc = new RMC("IIX");
return ($rmc->intVal()===8);
public function testXXXIX()
$rmc = new RMC("XXXIX");
return ($rmc->intVal()===39);
public function testXXXIIX()
$rmc = new RMC("XXXIIX");
return ($rmc->intVal()===38);
public function testMMMCMXCIX()
return (new RMC("MMMCMXCIX"))->intVal()===3999;
public function testMLXVI()
return (new RMC("MLXVI"))->intVal()===1066;
class RMC
private $numerals;
private $vals = [
'I' => 1,
'V' => 5,
'X' => 10,
'L' => 50,
'C' => 100,
'D' => 500,
'M' => 1000,
];
public function __construct($numerals)
$this->numerals = $numerals;
public function intVal()
$tot = 0;
$lastTot = 0;
$lastVal = 0;
foreach (array_reverse(str_split($this->numerals)) as $nml)
$value = $this->vals[$nml];
if ($lastVal<=$value)
$tot +=$value;
$lastVal = $value;
else if ($lastVal>$value)
$tot -= $value;
$lastTot = $tot;
return $tot;
And to run it:
$test = new RomanTest();
$test->runAll();
php unit-testing
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I just learned about Test Driven Development on a podcast yesterday. So I decided to try it out today by writing a roman numerals to integer converter (per their suggestion). I've never written Unit Tests before today.
My process
I wrote the test class with the runAll()
function, then I started writing my tests one at a time, from top to bottom, if you look at the RomanTest class below.
Between each chunk, I significantly changed the intVal()
method of RMC
.
- testI
through testM
, I merely checked hard-coded values in an array
- testII
through testXVII
, I looped over all the chars and added values together
- testIV
through testIIX
required a conditional modification to intVal()
- testXXXIX
(to the end) took a complete rewrite of intVal()
leading to the code posted below
Before writing the next test, I always confirmed the previous test was passing. Except, I wrote testL
-testM
all at once as those were VERY simple after getting testI-textX
working.
At points, when re-writing intVal
, my older tests broke. Then I would get all my tests passing again before continuing to the next test.
I never altered any previous tests when trying to get the new tests passing.
My questions:
1.) Is this a good work flow for TDD? If not, what could I improve?
2.) Did I run enough tests? Do I need to write more?
3.) Is it okay that, during intVal()
re-writes, previous tests broke? (considering I got them all passing again before moving to the next test)
I am asking for a review of my TDD code & process.
class RomanTest
public function runAll()
echo '<pre>'."n";
$methods = get_class_methods($this);
foreach ($methods as $method)
if ($method=='runAll')continue;
$mo = $method;
while (strlen($mo)<15)
$mo .='-';
echo "<b>$mo:</b> ";
echo $this->$method() ? 'true' : 'false';
echo "<br>n";
echo "n</pre>";
public function testI()
$rmc = new RMC("I");
if ($rmc->intVal()===1)
return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testV()
$rmc = new RMC("V");
if ($rmc->intVal()===5)
return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testX()
$rmc = new RMC("X");
if ($rmc->intVal()===10)return TRUE;
else return FALSE;
public function testL()
$rmc = new RMC("L");
if ($rmc->intVal()===50)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testC()
$rmc = new RMC("C");
if ($rmc->intVal()===100)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testD()
$rmc = new RMC("D");
if ($rmc->intVal()===500)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testM()
$rmc = new RMC("M");
if ($rmc->intVal()===1000)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testII()
$rmc = new RMC("II");
if ($rmc->intVal()===2)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testIII()
$rmc = new RMC("III");
if ($rmc->intVal()===3)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testVI()
$rmc = new RMC("VI");
if ($rmc->intVal()===6)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testVII()
$rmc = new RMC("VII");
if ($rmc->intVal()===7)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testXVII()
$rmc = new RMC("XVII");
if ($rmc->intVal()===17)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testIV()
$rmc = new RMC("IV");
return ($rmc->intVal()===4);
public function testIIV()
$rmc = new RMC("IIV");
return ($rmc->intVal()===3);
public function testIIX()
$rmc = new RMC("IIX");
return ($rmc->intVal()===8);
public function testXXXIX()
$rmc = new RMC("XXXIX");
return ($rmc->intVal()===39);
public function testXXXIIX()
$rmc = new RMC("XXXIIX");
return ($rmc->intVal()===38);
public function testMMMCMXCIX()
return (new RMC("MMMCMXCIX"))->intVal()===3999;
public function testMLXVI()
return (new RMC("MLXVI"))->intVal()===1066;
class RMC
private $numerals;
private $vals = [
'I' => 1,
'V' => 5,
'X' => 10,
'L' => 50,
'C' => 100,
'D' => 500,
'M' => 1000,
];
public function __construct($numerals)
$this->numerals = $numerals;
public function intVal()
$tot = 0;
$lastTot = 0;
$lastVal = 0;
foreach (array_reverse(str_split($this->numerals)) as $nml)
$value = $this->vals[$nml];
if ($lastVal<=$value)
$tot +=$value;
$lastVal = $value;
else if ($lastVal>$value)
$tot -= $value;
$lastTot = $tot;
return $tot;
And to run it:
$test = new RomanTest();
$test->runAll();
php unit-testing
$endgroup$
I just learned about Test Driven Development on a podcast yesterday. So I decided to try it out today by writing a roman numerals to integer converter (per their suggestion). I've never written Unit Tests before today.
My process
I wrote the test class with the runAll()
function, then I started writing my tests one at a time, from top to bottom, if you look at the RomanTest class below.
Between each chunk, I significantly changed the intVal()
method of RMC
.
- testI
through testM
, I merely checked hard-coded values in an array
- testII
through testXVII
, I looped over all the chars and added values together
- testIV
through testIIX
required a conditional modification to intVal()
- testXXXIX
(to the end) took a complete rewrite of intVal()
leading to the code posted below
Before writing the next test, I always confirmed the previous test was passing. Except, I wrote testL
-testM
all at once as those were VERY simple after getting testI-textX
working.
At points, when re-writing intVal
, my older tests broke. Then I would get all my tests passing again before continuing to the next test.
I never altered any previous tests when trying to get the new tests passing.
My questions:
1.) Is this a good work flow for TDD? If not, what could I improve?
2.) Did I run enough tests? Do I need to write more?
3.) Is it okay that, during intVal()
re-writes, previous tests broke? (considering I got them all passing again before moving to the next test)
I am asking for a review of my TDD code & process.
class RomanTest
public function runAll()
echo '<pre>'."n";
$methods = get_class_methods($this);
foreach ($methods as $method)
if ($method=='runAll')continue;
$mo = $method;
while (strlen($mo)<15)
$mo .='-';
echo "<b>$mo:</b> ";
echo $this->$method() ? 'true' : 'false';
echo "<br>n";
echo "n</pre>";
public function testI()
$rmc = new RMC("I");
if ($rmc->intVal()===1)
return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testV()
$rmc = new RMC("V");
if ($rmc->intVal()===5)
return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testX()
$rmc = new RMC("X");
if ($rmc->intVal()===10)return TRUE;
else return FALSE;
public function testL()
$rmc = new RMC("L");
if ($rmc->intVal()===50)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testC()
$rmc = new RMC("C");
if ($rmc->intVal()===100)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testD()
$rmc = new RMC("D");
if ($rmc->intVal()===500)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testM()
$rmc = new RMC("M");
if ($rmc->intVal()===1000)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testII()
$rmc = new RMC("II");
if ($rmc->intVal()===2)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testIII()
$rmc = new RMC("III");
if ($rmc->intVal()===3)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testVI()
$rmc = new RMC("VI");
if ($rmc->intVal()===6)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testVII()
$rmc = new RMC("VII");
if ($rmc->intVal()===7)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testXVII()
$rmc = new RMC("XVII");
if ($rmc->intVal()===17)return TRUE;
return FALSE;
public function testIV()
$rmc = new RMC("IV");
return ($rmc->intVal()===4);
public function testIIV()
$rmc = new RMC("IIV");
return ($rmc->intVal()===3);
public function testIIX()
$rmc = new RMC("IIX");
return ($rmc->intVal()===8);
public function testXXXIX()
$rmc = new RMC("XXXIX");
return ($rmc->intVal()===39);
public function testXXXIIX()
$rmc = new RMC("XXXIIX");
return ($rmc->intVal()===38);
public function testMMMCMXCIX()
return (new RMC("MMMCMXCIX"))->intVal()===3999;
public function testMLXVI()
return (new RMC("MLXVI"))->intVal()===1066;
class RMC
private $numerals;
private $vals = [
'I' => 1,
'V' => 5,
'X' => 10,
'L' => 50,
'C' => 100,
'D' => 500,
'M' => 1000,
];
public function __construct($numerals)
$this->numerals = $numerals;
public function intVal()
$tot = 0;
$lastTot = 0;
$lastVal = 0;
foreach (array_reverse(str_split($this->numerals)) as $nml)
$value = $this->vals[$nml];
if ($lastVal<=$value)
$tot +=$value;
$lastVal = $value;
else if ($lastVal>$value)
$tot -= $value;
$lastTot = $tot;
return $tot;
And to run it:
$test = new RomanTest();
$test->runAll();
php unit-testing
php unit-testing
asked 8 hours ago
ReedReed
1371 silver badge7 bronze badges
1371 silver badge7 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It is a good thing you completely seperated your testing code from the code you're testing.
All your tests have the same basic structure, so why not create an array containing:
[1 => "I",
2 => "II",
3 => "III",
4 => "IV",
5 => "V",
............];
And use that array to run your tests. You could even use the same array to test a function that does the inverse.
Moreso, having the inverse function is almost a must. It would further simplify the testing, since you can convert decimals to Roman numerals and back again. That way you don't need an array at all to do many tests.
Please pay attention to the names you choose. To me RMC
doesn't mean much. If you encounter this class name two years from now, will you immediately know what it means? I don't think so. Why not give it a proper name like: RomanNumerals
? This class could have two methods: toRoman()
and toDecimal()
. The intVal()
method name is confusing because there is already an intval() function which does something else.
Your questions
Is this a good work flow for TDD? If not, what could I improve?
You understand the basic principle, however I think it would have been possible to write all the tests before writing the real code. This is also often done in real life: The tests are known before the code is written. The writing of the code is driven by the tests. Or, to put it in another way: If you don't know what you're going to test, then how on earth could you write any code?
Did I run enough tests? Do I need to write more?
As I illustrated before, by writing the inverse function as well, you can do thousands of tests, without having to be very selective about it.
Is it okay that, during intVal() re-writes, previous tests broke?
Yes, that's fine. That's the whole idea behind test-driver-development: The tests tell you what's wrong.
Remember that there are frameworks for writing tests. It is clearly possible to work without them, but why reinvent the wheel again? See, for instance: PHPUnit
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for your feedback. I agree aboutRMC
. Good points abouttoDecimal()
instead ofintVal()
. Writing the inverse would make a lot of sense, and indeed would make it easy to run MANY tests. I'll give PHPUnit a go. Didn't feel likecomposer
ing it in for such a simple use case. But I'm sure it (or something similar) is what I should be using going forward. IDK whyRMC
. I was going forRomanNumeralsConverter
and just wanted to save typing. So it should have beenRNC
lol. I could have doneuse RomanNumeralsConverter as RNC;
to have the shorthand.
$endgroup$
– Reed
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
So do you think it is, generally, better to write ALL the tests before writing any code? I personally kind of like the incremental fashion of writing one test, failing, writing code to pass the test, then writing the next test, failing, coding, passing, repeat. Breaks the project down into smaller chunks of just building one tiny piece at a time. But I suppose I could write all the tests & then still focus on one test at a time if I need that bite-sized approach.
$endgroup$
– Reed
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm rambling a bit because I don't necessarily know what I'm talking about lol
$endgroup$
– Reed
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Your incremental method clearly works, and it is still test-driven. For bigger projects it is probably the way to do it.
$endgroup$
– KIKO Software
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "196"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f223635%2ftest-driven-development-roman-numerals-php%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It is a good thing you completely seperated your testing code from the code you're testing.
All your tests have the same basic structure, so why not create an array containing:
[1 => "I",
2 => "II",
3 => "III",
4 => "IV",
5 => "V",
............];
And use that array to run your tests. You could even use the same array to test a function that does the inverse.
Moreso, having the inverse function is almost a must. It would further simplify the testing, since you can convert decimals to Roman numerals and back again. That way you don't need an array at all to do many tests.
Please pay attention to the names you choose. To me RMC
doesn't mean much. If you encounter this class name two years from now, will you immediately know what it means? I don't think so. Why not give it a proper name like: RomanNumerals
? This class could have two methods: toRoman()
and toDecimal()
. The intVal()
method name is confusing because there is already an intval() function which does something else.
Your questions
Is this a good work flow for TDD? If not, what could I improve?
You understand the basic principle, however I think it would have been possible to write all the tests before writing the real code. This is also often done in real life: The tests are known before the code is written. The writing of the code is driven by the tests. Or, to put it in another way: If you don't know what you're going to test, then how on earth could you write any code?
Did I run enough tests? Do I need to write more?
As I illustrated before, by writing the inverse function as well, you can do thousands of tests, without having to be very selective about it.
Is it okay that, during intVal() re-writes, previous tests broke?
Yes, that's fine. That's the whole idea behind test-driver-development: The tests tell you what's wrong.
Remember that there are frameworks for writing tests. It is clearly possible to work without them, but why reinvent the wheel again? See, for instance: PHPUnit
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for your feedback. I agree aboutRMC
. Good points abouttoDecimal()
instead ofintVal()
. Writing the inverse would make a lot of sense, and indeed would make it easy to run MANY tests. I'll give PHPUnit a go. Didn't feel likecomposer
ing it in for such a simple use case. But I'm sure it (or something similar) is what I should be using going forward. IDK whyRMC
. I was going forRomanNumeralsConverter
and just wanted to save typing. So it should have beenRNC
lol. I could have doneuse RomanNumeralsConverter as RNC;
to have the shorthand.
$endgroup$
– Reed
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
So do you think it is, generally, better to write ALL the tests before writing any code? I personally kind of like the incremental fashion of writing one test, failing, writing code to pass the test, then writing the next test, failing, coding, passing, repeat. Breaks the project down into smaller chunks of just building one tiny piece at a time. But I suppose I could write all the tests & then still focus on one test at a time if I need that bite-sized approach.
$endgroup$
– Reed
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm rambling a bit because I don't necessarily know what I'm talking about lol
$endgroup$
– Reed
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Your incremental method clearly works, and it is still test-driven. For bigger projects it is probably the way to do it.
$endgroup$
– KIKO Software
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is a good thing you completely seperated your testing code from the code you're testing.
All your tests have the same basic structure, so why not create an array containing:
[1 => "I",
2 => "II",
3 => "III",
4 => "IV",
5 => "V",
............];
And use that array to run your tests. You could even use the same array to test a function that does the inverse.
Moreso, having the inverse function is almost a must. It would further simplify the testing, since you can convert decimals to Roman numerals and back again. That way you don't need an array at all to do many tests.
Please pay attention to the names you choose. To me RMC
doesn't mean much. If you encounter this class name two years from now, will you immediately know what it means? I don't think so. Why not give it a proper name like: RomanNumerals
? This class could have two methods: toRoman()
and toDecimal()
. The intVal()
method name is confusing because there is already an intval() function which does something else.
Your questions
Is this a good work flow for TDD? If not, what could I improve?
You understand the basic principle, however I think it would have been possible to write all the tests before writing the real code. This is also often done in real life: The tests are known before the code is written. The writing of the code is driven by the tests. Or, to put it in another way: If you don't know what you're going to test, then how on earth could you write any code?
Did I run enough tests? Do I need to write more?
As I illustrated before, by writing the inverse function as well, you can do thousands of tests, without having to be very selective about it.
Is it okay that, during intVal() re-writes, previous tests broke?
Yes, that's fine. That's the whole idea behind test-driver-development: The tests tell you what's wrong.
Remember that there are frameworks for writing tests. It is clearly possible to work without them, but why reinvent the wheel again? See, for instance: PHPUnit
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for your feedback. I agree aboutRMC
. Good points abouttoDecimal()
instead ofintVal()
. Writing the inverse would make a lot of sense, and indeed would make it easy to run MANY tests. I'll give PHPUnit a go. Didn't feel likecomposer
ing it in for such a simple use case. But I'm sure it (or something similar) is what I should be using going forward. IDK whyRMC
. I was going forRomanNumeralsConverter
and just wanted to save typing. So it should have beenRNC
lol. I could have doneuse RomanNumeralsConverter as RNC;
to have the shorthand.
$endgroup$
– Reed
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
So do you think it is, generally, better to write ALL the tests before writing any code? I personally kind of like the incremental fashion of writing one test, failing, writing code to pass the test, then writing the next test, failing, coding, passing, repeat. Breaks the project down into smaller chunks of just building one tiny piece at a time. But I suppose I could write all the tests & then still focus on one test at a time if I need that bite-sized approach.
$endgroup$
– Reed
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm rambling a bit because I don't necessarily know what I'm talking about lol
$endgroup$
– Reed
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Your incremental method clearly works, and it is still test-driven. For bigger projects it is probably the way to do it.
$endgroup$
– KIKO Software
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is a good thing you completely seperated your testing code from the code you're testing.
All your tests have the same basic structure, so why not create an array containing:
[1 => "I",
2 => "II",
3 => "III",
4 => "IV",
5 => "V",
............];
And use that array to run your tests. You could even use the same array to test a function that does the inverse.
Moreso, having the inverse function is almost a must. It would further simplify the testing, since you can convert decimals to Roman numerals and back again. That way you don't need an array at all to do many tests.
Please pay attention to the names you choose. To me RMC
doesn't mean much. If you encounter this class name two years from now, will you immediately know what it means? I don't think so. Why not give it a proper name like: RomanNumerals
? This class could have two methods: toRoman()
and toDecimal()
. The intVal()
method name is confusing because there is already an intval() function which does something else.
Your questions
Is this a good work flow for TDD? If not, what could I improve?
You understand the basic principle, however I think it would have been possible to write all the tests before writing the real code. This is also often done in real life: The tests are known before the code is written. The writing of the code is driven by the tests. Or, to put it in another way: If you don't know what you're going to test, then how on earth could you write any code?
Did I run enough tests? Do I need to write more?
As I illustrated before, by writing the inverse function as well, you can do thousands of tests, without having to be very selective about it.
Is it okay that, during intVal() re-writes, previous tests broke?
Yes, that's fine. That's the whole idea behind test-driver-development: The tests tell you what's wrong.
Remember that there are frameworks for writing tests. It is clearly possible to work without them, but why reinvent the wheel again? See, for instance: PHPUnit
$endgroup$
It is a good thing you completely seperated your testing code from the code you're testing.
All your tests have the same basic structure, so why not create an array containing:
[1 => "I",
2 => "II",
3 => "III",
4 => "IV",
5 => "V",
............];
And use that array to run your tests. You could even use the same array to test a function that does the inverse.
Moreso, having the inverse function is almost a must. It would further simplify the testing, since you can convert decimals to Roman numerals and back again. That way you don't need an array at all to do many tests.
Please pay attention to the names you choose. To me RMC
doesn't mean much. If you encounter this class name two years from now, will you immediately know what it means? I don't think so. Why not give it a proper name like: RomanNumerals
? This class could have two methods: toRoman()
and toDecimal()
. The intVal()
method name is confusing because there is already an intval() function which does something else.
Your questions
Is this a good work flow for TDD? If not, what could I improve?
You understand the basic principle, however I think it would have been possible to write all the tests before writing the real code. This is also often done in real life: The tests are known before the code is written. The writing of the code is driven by the tests. Or, to put it in another way: If you don't know what you're going to test, then how on earth could you write any code?
Did I run enough tests? Do I need to write more?
As I illustrated before, by writing the inverse function as well, you can do thousands of tests, without having to be very selective about it.
Is it okay that, during intVal() re-writes, previous tests broke?
Yes, that's fine. That's the whole idea behind test-driver-development: The tests tell you what's wrong.
Remember that there are frameworks for writing tests. It is clearly possible to work without them, but why reinvent the wheel again? See, for instance: PHPUnit
answered 5 hours ago
KIKO SoftwareKIKO Software
3,5866 silver badges16 bronze badges
3,5866 silver badges16 bronze badges
$begingroup$
Thank you for your feedback. I agree aboutRMC
. Good points abouttoDecimal()
instead ofintVal()
. Writing the inverse would make a lot of sense, and indeed would make it easy to run MANY tests. I'll give PHPUnit a go. Didn't feel likecomposer
ing it in for such a simple use case. But I'm sure it (or something similar) is what I should be using going forward. IDK whyRMC
. I was going forRomanNumeralsConverter
and just wanted to save typing. So it should have beenRNC
lol. I could have doneuse RomanNumeralsConverter as RNC;
to have the shorthand.
$endgroup$
– Reed
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
So do you think it is, generally, better to write ALL the tests before writing any code? I personally kind of like the incremental fashion of writing one test, failing, writing code to pass the test, then writing the next test, failing, coding, passing, repeat. Breaks the project down into smaller chunks of just building one tiny piece at a time. But I suppose I could write all the tests & then still focus on one test at a time if I need that bite-sized approach.
$endgroup$
– Reed
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm rambling a bit because I don't necessarily know what I'm talking about lol
$endgroup$
– Reed
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Your incremental method clearly works, and it is still test-driven. For bigger projects it is probably the way to do it.
$endgroup$
– KIKO Software
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you for your feedback. I agree aboutRMC
. Good points abouttoDecimal()
instead ofintVal()
. Writing the inverse would make a lot of sense, and indeed would make it easy to run MANY tests. I'll give PHPUnit a go. Didn't feel likecomposer
ing it in for such a simple use case. But I'm sure it (or something similar) is what I should be using going forward. IDK whyRMC
. I was going forRomanNumeralsConverter
and just wanted to save typing. So it should have beenRNC
lol. I could have doneuse RomanNumeralsConverter as RNC;
to have the shorthand.
$endgroup$
– Reed
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
So do you think it is, generally, better to write ALL the tests before writing any code? I personally kind of like the incremental fashion of writing one test, failing, writing code to pass the test, then writing the next test, failing, coding, passing, repeat. Breaks the project down into smaller chunks of just building one tiny piece at a time. But I suppose I could write all the tests & then still focus on one test at a time if I need that bite-sized approach.
$endgroup$
– Reed
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm rambling a bit because I don't necessarily know what I'm talking about lol
$endgroup$
– Reed
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Your incremental method clearly works, and it is still test-driven. For bigger projects it is probably the way to do it.
$endgroup$
– KIKO Software
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank you for your feedback. I agree about
RMC
. Good points about toDecimal()
instead of intVal()
. Writing the inverse would make a lot of sense, and indeed would make it easy to run MANY tests. I'll give PHPUnit a go. Didn't feel like composer
ing it in for such a simple use case. But I'm sure it (or something similar) is what I should be using going forward. IDK why RMC
. I was going for RomanNumeralsConverter
and just wanted to save typing. So it should have been RNC
lol. I could have done use RomanNumeralsConverter as RNC;
to have the shorthand.$endgroup$
– Reed
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank you for your feedback. I agree about
RMC
. Good points about toDecimal()
instead of intVal()
. Writing the inverse would make a lot of sense, and indeed would make it easy to run MANY tests. I'll give PHPUnit a go. Didn't feel like composer
ing it in for such a simple use case. But I'm sure it (or something similar) is what I should be using going forward. IDK why RMC
. I was going for RomanNumeralsConverter
and just wanted to save typing. So it should have been RNC
lol. I could have done use RomanNumeralsConverter as RNC;
to have the shorthand.$endgroup$
– Reed
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
So do you think it is, generally, better to write ALL the tests before writing any code? I personally kind of like the incremental fashion of writing one test, failing, writing code to pass the test, then writing the next test, failing, coding, passing, repeat. Breaks the project down into smaller chunks of just building one tiny piece at a time. But I suppose I could write all the tests & then still focus on one test at a time if I need that bite-sized approach.
$endgroup$
– Reed
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
So do you think it is, generally, better to write ALL the tests before writing any code? I personally kind of like the incremental fashion of writing one test, failing, writing code to pass the test, then writing the next test, failing, coding, passing, repeat. Breaks the project down into smaller chunks of just building one tiny piece at a time. But I suppose I could write all the tests & then still focus on one test at a time if I need that bite-sized approach.
$endgroup$
– Reed
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm rambling a bit because I don't necessarily know what I'm talking about lol
$endgroup$
– Reed
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm rambling a bit because I don't necessarily know what I'm talking about lol
$endgroup$
– Reed
5 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Your incremental method clearly works, and it is still test-driven. For bigger projects it is probably the way to do it.
$endgroup$
– KIKO Software
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Your incremental method clearly works, and it is still test-driven. For bigger projects it is probably the way to do it.
$endgroup$
– KIKO Software
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f223635%2ftest-driven-development-roman-numerals-php%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown