The latest post on the Google Testing blog is quite interesting. Philip Zembrod discusses the readability of code developed by TDD and found that sometimes reading the test first didn’t always help to understand the written code.

He makes a valid point. I started objecting to using mocks when it was pointed out to me that most of the tests produced with mocks weren’t readable. They typically don’t follow AAA (Arrange Act Assert), and thus work poorly as specifications. But it’s not the mocks, it’s how understandable the test is as a specification. Is it easy to understand what the test does?

If I look at a test 5 months from now, and it is unclear what its testing and how its testing it. Then the ROI of developing that test is lower than it could be.