Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

5
  • 5
    Interesting. How did you reach the conclusion that outside in TDD is "mockist" TDD? I very much prefer Outside-In thinking and design and thus testing (see softwareonastring.com/2015/01/10/…) yet the Fowler article firmly puts me with Fowler in the classicist camp. While mockist may always use an outside-in approach, you can't turn it around and say that outside-in design and testing is mockist TDD. Outside-in can be and very much is practised by classicist TDD-ers as well. Commented Mar 28, 2015 at 18:32
  • @jimmy_keen - With outside-in, do you at any point replace the mocks in the higher level tests with the later-created actual implementations? Or do you leave them as mocked dependencies and then exercise the the whole production code as an integration test? Commented Oct 22, 2015 at 17:35
  • 4
    I disagree that Classic/Mockist and Inside-Out/Outside-In are related. They are orthogonal. You can use Inside-Out/Outside-In with either. Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 19:05
  • Agree with Daniel. You are likening two taxonomies that are different. Although Outside-in development is often associated with London (mockist) school, it is not always the case. Commented Oct 25, 2017 at 9:54
  • 2
    I don't think this is a correct description of the outside-in process. It's about testing from the public interfaces without coupling to to internals, as much as possible. Commented Aug 23, 2018 at 8:44