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;








1












$begingroup$


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();









share|improve this question









$endgroup$


















    1












    $begingroup$


    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();









    share|improve this question









    $endgroup$














      1












      1








      1


      1



      $begingroup$


      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();









      share|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      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






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 8 hours ago









      ReedReed

      1371 silver badge7 bronze badges




      1371 silver badge7 bronze badges




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3












          $begingroup$

          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






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            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 composering 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










          • $begingroup$
            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













          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
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          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









          3












          $begingroup$

          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






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            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 composering 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










          • $begingroup$
            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















          3












          $begingroup$

          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






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            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 composering 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










          • $begingroup$
            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













          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          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






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          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







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          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 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 composering 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










          • $begingroup$
            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 composering 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










          • $begingroup$
            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 composering 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 composering 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

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          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





















































          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







          Popular posts from this blog

          ParseJSON using SSJSUsing AMPscript with SSJS ActivitiesHow to resubscribe a user in Marketing cloud using SSJS?Pulling Subscriber Status from Lists using SSJSRetrieving Emails using SSJSProblem in updating DE using SSJSUsing SSJS to send single email in Marketing CloudError adding EmailSendDefinition using SSJS

          Кампала Садржај Географија Географија Историја Становништво Привреда Партнерски градови Референце Спољашње везе Мени за навигацију0°11′ СГШ; 32°20′ ИГД / 0.18° СГШ; 32.34° ИГД / 0.18; 32.340°11′ СГШ; 32°20′ ИГД / 0.18° СГШ; 32.34° ИГД / 0.18; 32.34МедијиПодациЗванични веб-сајту

          19. јануар Садржај Догађаји Рођења Смрти Празници и дани сећања Види још Референце Мени за навигацијуу