Designs, testing secured code with nUnit and a book review

My current project is finishing the design phase this week. Our leads are insisting that we design to a low level, including method signatures for business objects, the database layer and the stored procedures. We have been iterating the designs extensively and they are becoming very detailed. I've learned a ton about my functional area and will now be able to easily write the code. As I understand it, the rationale behind extensive upfront design is that changing the code is much more expensive than changing the designs. With modern tools this is becoming less true. I can change a method signature and callers in VStudio as quickly as I can update a Word document and fix up the Interaction Diagrams in Visio. My recent projects have been 2 or 3 developers using an Agile process, this one is 10+ developers.

If you need to use nUnit to test code that is protected by .NET security, you need to provide a Principal to the nUnit thread. For example, 
   // This principal will be used throughout the tests
   Thread.CurrentPrincipal = new GenericPrincipal( new GenericIdentity("TedsTester"), new string[] { "DeleteEverything" } );


[What I'm reading: Effective Java Modeled after Scott Meyer's incredible Effective C++ books, this manual of Java best practices should be required reading for C# developers. Joshua Bloch is an architect on the Java class libraries and this book is filled with the knowledge that comes from years of use. C# is quite close to Java and most of the tips in this book apply beautifully. Especially good for C++ developers moving to C#. In 5 years someone will know C# well enough to write an equivalent book, but this one will help you code better while we wait. (I'm an Amazon affiliate, all monies will be matched and donated to a homeless shelter in southern Colorado)]

1 Comment

  • Do you now know all of it so the design is ready? Or will the code phase make you and your team learn more and therefore force design and code changes?





    I guess what you will answer.


    :-)


    Perhaps that can be used as an argument against detailed design?

Comments have been disabled for this content.