在单元测试和TDD的哲学优势方面，这里有一些关键的“灯泡”观察，这些观察在我试探性地走上TDD启蒙之路的第一步时打动了我(没有原创或一定是新闻)……

TDD does NOT mean writing twice the amount of code. Test code is typically fairly quick and painless to write and is a key part of your design process and critically. TDD helps you to realize when to stop coding! Your tests give you confidence that you've done enough for now and can stop tweaking and move on to the next thing. The tests and the code work together to achieve better code. Your code could be bad / buggy. Your TEST could be bad / buggy. In TDD you are banking on the chances of BOTH being bad / buggy being fairly low. Often its the test that needs fixing but that's still a good outcome. TDD helps with coding constipation. You know that feeling that you have so much to do you barely know where to start? It's Friday afternoon, if you just procrastinate for a couple more hours... TDD allows you to flesh out very quickly what you think you need to do, and gets your coding moving quickly. Also, like lab rats, I think we all respond to that big green light and work harder to see it again! In a similar vein, these designer types can SEE what they're working on. They can wander off for a juice / cigarette / iphone break and return to a monitor that immediately gives them a visual cue as to where they got to. TDD gives us something similar. It's easier to see where we got to when life intervenes... I think it was Fowler who said: "Imperfect tests, run frequently, are much better than perfect tests that are never written at all". I interprete this as giving me permission to write tests where I think they'll be most useful even if the rest of my code coverage is woefully incomplete. TDD helps in all kinds of surprising ways down the line. Good unit tests can help document what something is supposed to do, they can help you migrate code from one project to another and give you an unwarranted feeling of superiority over your non-testing colleagues :)

这篇演讲很好地介绍了测试所需要的所有内容。

I think the point that you don't understand is that unit testing frameworks like NUnit (and the like) will help you in automating small to medium-sized tests. Usually you can run the tests in a GUI (that's the case with NUnit, for instance) by simply clicking a button and then - hopefully - see the progress bar stay green. If it turns red, the framework shows you which test failed and what exactly went wrong. In a normal unit test, you often use assertions, e.g. Assert.AreEqual(expectedValue, actualValue, "some description") - so if the two values are unequal you will see an error saying "some description: expected <expectedValue> but was <actualValue>".

总之，单元测试将使测试更快，对开发人员来说更舒服。您可以在提交新代码之前运行所有的单元测试，这样就不会中断同一项目中其他开发人员的构建过程。

我在大学里从未学过单元测试，我花了一段时间才“学会”它。我读到它，心想“啊，对，自动化测试，我想那应该很酷”，然后我就忘记了。

It took quite a bit longer before I really figured out the point: Let's say you're working on a large system and you write a small module. It compiles, you put it through its paces, it works great, you move on to the next task. Nine months down the line and two versions later someone else makes a change to some seemingly unrelated part of the program, and it breaks the module. Worse, they test their changes, and their code works, but they don't test your module; hell, they may not even know your module exists.

现在你有了一个问题:坏代码在主干中，甚至没有人知道。最好的情况是内部测试人员在您发布之前就发现了它，但是在游戏后期修复代码的成本很高。如果没有内部测试人员发现它……嗯，这确实会非常昂贵。

The solution is unit tests. They'll catch problems when you write code - which is fine - but you could have done that by hand. The real payoff is that they'll catch problems nine months down the line when you're now working on a completely different project, but a summer intern thinks it'll look tidier if those parameters were in alphabetical order - and then the unit test you wrote way back fails, and someone throws things at the intern until he changes the parameter order back. That's the "why" of unit tests. :-)

我在FoxForward 2007参加了一个关于单元测试的演讲，被告知永远不要对任何与数据相关的东西进行单元测试。毕竟，如果您在实时数据上进行测试，结果是不可预测的，如果您不在实时数据上进行测试，那么实际上并不是在测试您所编写的代码。不幸的是，这是我最近编写的大部分代码。: -)

最近，当我编写一个保存和恢复设置的例程时，我确实尝试了TDD。首先，我验证了是否可以创建存储对象。然后，它有我需要调用的方法。然后，我可以称之为。然后，我可以给它传递参数。然后，我可以给它传递特定的参数。依此类推，直到我最终验证它将保存指定的设置，允许我更改它，然后为几种不同的语法恢复它。

我没看完，因为我现在需要例行公事，但这是一个很好的练习。

This is my take on it. I would say unit testing is the practice of writing software tests to verify that your real software does what it is meant to. This started with jUnit in the Java world and has become a best practice in PHP as well with SimpleTest and phpUnit. It's a core practice of Extreme Programming and helps you to be sure that your software still works as intended after editing. If you have sufficient test coverage, you can do major refactoring, bug fixing or add features rapidly with much less fear of introducing other problems.

当所有单元测试都能自动运行时，这是最有效的。

单元测试通常与OO开发相关联。基本思想是创建一个脚本，为你的代码设置环境，然后练习它;您编写断言，指定您应该接收的预期输出，然后使用如上所述的框架执行您的测试脚本。

框架将针对您的代码运行所有测试，然后报告每个测试的成功或失败。phpUnit默认情况下从Linux命令行运行，尽管有HTTP接口可用于它。SimpleTest本质上是基于web的，在我看来，它更容易启动和运行。结合xDebug, phpUnit可以为您提供代码覆盖率的自动统计数据，有些人认为这非常有用。

有些团队从他们的subversion存储库编写钩子，以便在提交更改时自动运行单元测试。

将单元测试保存在与应用程序相同的存储库中是一个很好的实践。

我不反对丹的观点(尽管不回答可能是更好的选择)……但是……

单元测试是编写代码来测试系统的行为和功能的过程。

显然，测试可以提高代码的质量，但这只是单元测试的表面好处。真正的好处是:

Make it easier to change the technical implementation while making sure you don't change the behavior (refactoring). Properly unit tested code can be aggressively refactored/cleaned up with little chance of breaking anything without noticing it. Give developers confidence when adding behavior or making fixes. Document your code Indicate areas of your code that are tightly coupled. It's hard to unit test code that's tightly coupled Provide a means to use your API and look for difficulties early on Indicates methods and classes that aren't very cohesive

你应该进行单元测试，因为向客户交付可维护的高质量产品符合你的利益。

我建议您将它用于任何系统，或系统的一部分，以模拟真实世界的行为。换句话说，它特别适合于企业开发。我不会将它用于一次性/实用程序。我不会用它来测试系统中有问题的部分(UI是一个常见的例子，但并不总是这样)

最大的陷阱是开发人员测试太大的单元，或者他们认为一个方法是一个单元。如果您不理解控制反转，这一点尤其正确——在这种情况下，您的单元测试总是会变成端到端集成测试。单元测试应该测试单个行为——大多数方法都有许多行为。

最大的误解是程序员不应该测试。只有糟糕或懒惰的程序员才会相信这一点。给你盖屋顶的人不应该测试吗?更换心脏瓣膜的医生不应该检查新瓣膜吗?只有程序员才能测试他的代码是否按照他的意图去做(QA可以测试边缘情况——当代码被告知要做程序员不打算做的事情时，它的行为如何，而客户可以进行验收测试——代码是否按照客户的要求去做)