I work in the same order as npsimons. It's a similar philosophy to the red-green-refactor strategy (http://bit.ly/OazqR8).
The advantage, to me, is that you focus on the behavior of the application rather than the code. I have a tendency to get off-track when I'm coding and I'll start on refactors that, in hindsight, were a terrible idea.
By forcing myself to be sure that the feature/bug is something I really want, I stay on-track because that damned test keeps failing and I just want to make it go green! By writing the test beforehand, I can be sure that it's what I really want and not just what's easy to code.
That said, both ways work and I sometimes switch to an approach like yours.
The advantage, to me, is that you focus on the behavior of the application rather than the code. I have a tendency to get off-track when I'm coding and I'll start on refactors that, in hindsight, were a terrible idea.
Very much the same for me; I'm much like Lenny from "Memento" at times ("now what was I doing?"); add to this that reproducing the bug is essentially what you are doing by writing a regression test for it. Also it falls in line with TDD as applied to maintenance (keep coding until all the tests pass). One last thing: it's kind of a wash with VC these days (and reverting, as the GP said), but if you fix the bug first, are you certain your test is catching it? I like to have a piece of code that I can say "yes, when I do this, my code fails; now to fix it."
The advantage, to me, is that you focus on the behavior of the application rather than the code. I have a tendency to get off-track when I'm coding and I'll start on refactors that, in hindsight, were a terrible idea.
By forcing myself to be sure that the feature/bug is something I really want, I stay on-track because that damned test keeps failing and I just want to make it go green! By writing the test beforehand, I can be sure that it's what I really want and not just what's easy to code.
That said, both ways work and I sometimes switch to an approach like yours.