<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More MSpec &#8211; ReSharper love</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nullreference.se/2010/08/27/more-mspec-resharper-love/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nullreference.se/2010/08/27/more-mspec-resharper-love/</link>
	<description>Object reference not set to an instance of an object...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:48:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kenneth Selin</title>
		<link>http://www.nullreference.se/2010/08/27/more-mspec-resharper-love/#comment-20</link>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Selin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:00:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nullreference.se/2010/08/27/more-mspec-resharper-love/#comment-20</guid>
		<description>Interesting topic.

The purpose of the test case seems to be at a very high level. So I suppose the content of the test case should be at an appropriately (similarly) high level?

Implementation details don&#039;t seem to go along with a test case at &quot;user story&quot; level, amirite?

(I&#039;m not saying that the content of the test case in the blog is too low-level, but I suppose it could become an issue.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting topic.</p>
<p>The purpose of the test case seems to be at a very high level. So I suppose the content of the test case should be at an appropriately (similarly) high level?</p>
<p>Implementation details don&#8217;t seem to go along with a test case at &#8220;user story&#8221; level, amirite?</p>
<p>(I&#8217;m not saying that the content of the test case in the blog is too low-level, but I suppose it could become an issue.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jens Pettersson</title>
		<link>http://www.nullreference.se/2010/08/27/more-mspec-resharper-love/#comment-19</link>
		<dc:creator>Jens Pettersson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nullreference.se/2010/08/27/more-mspec-resharper-love/#comment-19</guid>
		<description>It sure suites us for the moment. It&#039;s not the mother of all *** Driven Design, but it feels nice to have your applications behaviour in code but in (kind of) plain english.

That said, it shouldn&#039;t substitute things like Unit Tests, but rather complement it. Our struggle right now is to distinguish what&#039;s better suited for unit testing and what&#039;s not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It sure suites us for the moment. It&#8217;s not the mother of all *** Driven Design, but it feels nice to have your applications behaviour in code but in (kind of) plain english.</p>
<p>That said, it shouldn&#8217;t substitute things like Unit Tests, but rather complement it. Our struggle right now is to distinguish what&#8217;s better suited for unit testing and what&#8217;s not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kenneth Selin</title>
		<link>http://www.nullreference.se/2010/08/27/more-mspec-resharper-love/#comment-18</link>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Selin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:36:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nullreference.se/2010/08/27/more-mspec-resharper-love/#comment-18</guid>
		<description>So, BDD, is it good?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, BDD, is it good?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

