3 ms·
> When I say tested properly, I mean tested completely. I am still in the learning phase, but even I know that complete testing of any complex software is prac
by vdaniuk 12y ago
> When I say tested properly, I mean tested completely.
I am still in the learning phase, but even I know that complete testing of any complex software is practically impossible.
So, how do you guarantee completedness in "proper" testing? I know you can't without redefining the word "completely". What's your definition?
Also see Impossibility of Complete Testing[0] by Cem Kanen, co-founder of http://www.associationforsoftwaretesting.org/ http://www.associationforsoftwaretesting.org/
[0] http://kaner.com/pdfs/impossible.pdf http://kaner.com/pdfs/impossible.pdf
- badgersandjam 12y agoYes you're right. When your system consists of functions "A, B, C, D", I'd expect to see test suites for "A, B, C, D". In this case there were test suites for "A, B, C". The client found D therefore the test suite was incomplete. Now if a bit of A, B, C or D suites were missing that would be different and entirely expected.
- nitrogen 12y agoYou should at least be testing the happy path and most common failure mode of every component of a software system, whether manually or automatically. The most visible components to the user should be tested most. Imagine an ecommerce site where nobody ever tested checkout, or an OS where nobody tested logging in.