Re: lots of quick tests that have very low cost but uncertain value
- From: "Llarry" <tghllama@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 06 Mar 2006 15:29:19 EST
"Phlip" <phlip2005@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jg%Of.3881$%m4.1053@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Testers:
I found that statement here:
http://www.developsense.com/blog.html
(I don't know where its permanent link will go. Google the web for the
subject line if you are in the future.)
How defensible is such a position? How could cheap but innaccurate tests
possibly help anything??
I do not believe (and I expect Michael will respond and elaborate) that he
means that the tests are inaccurate, but rather that the benefits to be
obtained are not pre-defined and may vary greatly. Some of these "quick
tests" may turn out to be redundant with others, or even with more formal
tests. Some may check a condition that, in the end, cannot exist. Others
may, at best, *hint* at a problem, suggesting the need for more detailed
tests. Finally a few might hit the jackpot, revealing a major problem,
possibly even *because* they are less formally structured.
I believe that the intent is that, if the tests are cheap enough, any
information they return is a bonus.
--
-- Llarry Amrose
"It's like ham and eggs. The Chicken makes a contribution,
but the Pig, he makes a commitment." -- Fred Shero
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: lots of quick tests that have very low cost but uncertain value
- Next by Date: Re: lots of quick tests that have very low cost but uncertain value
- Previous by thread: lots of quick tests that have very low cost but uncertain value
- Next by thread: Re: lots of quick tests that have very low cost but uncertain value
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
