This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Ruby Buzz by Ryan Davis. Original Post: Notes on Heckle Feed Title: Polishing Ruby Feed URL: http://blog.zenspider.com/index.rdf Feed Description: Musings on Ruby and the Ruby Community... Latest Ruby Buzz Posts Latest Ruby Buzz Posts by Ryan Davis Latest Posts From Polishing Ruby

From an IM with Eric Hodel:

"I ran it on [insert scary class name here]
it finally ran into a [method in the r's] about 2 hours later
I think it found no errors
so heckle will tell you one of three things about your code:
its well tested,
its poorly tested,
and its so coupled that test failures must happen because its crap." (emphasis mine)

I have to agree. When I started heckle I was hoping for somehing better than rcov that would tell you that your code is poorly tested... But code so poorly engineered that changing anything as bound to make everything fall apart looks like well tested (read: heckle-proof) code in a sense. We both think that running just the unit tests that directly test the MUT (method under test) would help, but really it wouldn't help enough. I tend to think at that point that you don't have technology problems, you've got people problems. Technology can't help that very well.

Suggestions? How would you differentiated between "well tested" and "tightly coupled crap"?