In
<cae1xxde74ruwarz2_7t1x3qlccv8fykjrb5gqjawnlbasts...@mail.gmail.com>,
on 06/03/2013
at 11:52 AM, John Gilmore <[email protected]> said:
>Something akin to regression testing is of course inescapable; but
>comprehensive unit testing of new subroutines is better and, like
>liquor, quicker. One needs to be alerted to discrepancies, but one
>also needs to remember that many things are done wrong in old code.
That is analogous to claiming that air is better than water, or a
hammer better than a screwdriver. Unit testing is not better yhan unit
testing of new routines, it is different. Both are necessary. There is
a role for all of
Unit testing of new routines
Unit testing of old routines after changes, and accumulating a
libraty of regression tests for futute changes.
Integration testing, including a suite of regression tests.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
