No, TDD means that if there is a line of code anywhere that was not written to make some failing test pass, that code is by definition broken. ALL code must be against some test, else it's not TDD. And if you want to write code for which there is no test, you must write the test first, run the test suite to see it fail, and then implement the code that will make the test pass.
>No, TDD means that if there is a line of code anywhere that was not written to make some failing test pass, that code is by definition broken. ALL code must be against some test, else it's not TDD.
Robert Martin is likely the biggest evangelist for TDD, and he does not advocate what you say.
Why do people keep claiming you have to test every line of code in TDD?
> No, TDD means that if there is a line of code anywhere that was not written to make some failing test pass, that code is by definition broken.
No, it doesn't. TDD means tests are written to test the code, and the code being written must pass all tests. It's ok if at any point some parts of the code aren't covered by tests, because TDD is a cyclic process where at each cycle new tests are written to accompany changes in the code.
It seems that the only people complaining about TDD are those who pull the strawman card and portray the process as being unreasonably convoluted and picky, to a level which is almost autistic.
Should you write tests for the tests too? What I find is that in any project of a certain complexity, the tests can end up having the wrong scope or outright bugs in them.
I keep asking the same thing, especially that given any non-trivial self-contained piece of code, the test code will necessarily be isomorphic to the actual implementation - at which point one has to ask, why bother with TDD in the first place and not just write the complex code once?
Anything else is not TDD.