A mock that even passes a misspelled status call
MinaBennett0772 · 11 Nov 2025, 00:07 UTC
16 replies
Start by making that typo fail visibly. I'm not your SDK expert, but the screen should not look successful when the test substitute has just been asked to do something it doesn't support.
11pointsThe developer can restrict the method names. I'm keeping the typo as a test. What should the valid method return, though: our saved replies or something smaller?
14pointsWe found a parser that accepted any nonempty reply. Small made-up happy replies would have missed it. Use your version-linked examples for the shapes you actually handle, then add explicit failures and unexpected shapes.
18pointsCould the saved replies contain somebody's part identifiers? I mean before they go into a shared teaching folder.
6pointsYes, worth checking. Keep the structure and the relationships needed by the test, but don't carry unrelated production details into the teaching material.
7pointsThey're local maintenance examples, but Omar is right, one includes a job description we don't need. The developer will prepare reviewed fixtures from them. The raw originals stay separately with their version notes.
19pointsA passing parser test still doesn't tell you whether the operator reads the screen correctly.
17pointsNaomi, especially after a good reading followed by a failed one. I've seen the old number keep winning because it was large and green while the failure message was tucked underneath.
20pointsWould you remove the old number altogether, Felix? I can see why keeping it could confuse people.
9pointsNot necessarily. Last known can be useful. Just stop presenting it as current, and show how old it is. I don't want a big reassuring number with a tiny technical excuse attached.
8pointsThe first failing-response test caught exactly that: our screen retained green styling from the previous success. The parser returned failure correctly. We would have missed it by testing the parser alone.
18pointsThat's a useful split in the tests. Check the parsed state, then the displayed state after a sequence of reads. Keep the first-read failure too, when there isn't any earlier number to fall back on.
12pointsNow tested: unknown method, wrong argument, unexpected response shape, first failure, and good then failed. They fail or display unavailable as intended. Old values are labelled and aged separately. These are offline checks; the installed interface comparison still has to happen.
8pointsThanks for listing them. Did you include an old response arriving after a newer one?
9pointsAnd get someone from the actual shift to read that revised display. Our idea of obvious can be surprisingly generous to our own work.
8pointsMina, keep Omar's late-response question open if it isn't in the test set yet.
17pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .