This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science
I doubt that "Tester Driven Development" is a valid term, or that it provides any value. One google-hit outside Wikipedia, and on that page the meaning is different from here.
Maybe the article should be removed?
Epim14:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it's an actual term, it looks like it comes from a patterns book. See the anti-pattern list. I think a section about the pattern on the TDD page would be interesting (provides an opposing POV), but I don't want to write it without reading the book or reviewing the SE literature to learn about the pattern. Maybe the book isn't noteworthy enough to list all the patterns in it, which seems to be the larger issue here. --Chris Pickett16:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that one book is enough to make this a term that should be widely adopted, and written in Wikipedia. Please provide at least two more respected instances.
My main concerns with the term is that:
it is easily confused with Test-Driven Development
it gives negative connotations for software testers
the name don't consider other causes for long testing phases
the description don't see any potential positive aspects of tester-drive (making something good of something bad)
The term isn't widespread (only 78 google hits, many of which are wikipedia itself, nor had I heard it myself). I'd delete this article as not notable, myself. It doesn't matter a whole lot, for wikipedia purposes, whether it is a good term, but it matters a lot whether there are verifiable sources which define the term and demonstrate its use in more than one or two places. Right now, this article has no sources. Kingdon16:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the phrase is currently widespread enough to have its own article, but the paragraphs themselves have some value. Maybe it could be made part of an anti-patterns in software testing article, where we could use it along with other classic mistakes:
not allocating any time/resources for testing
leaving testing until the end, and assuming the code works. That is, assuming all tests pass first time.
writing tests to show the app works, rather than break the app.
not testing in an environemnt that resembles production.
