Dann Corbit wrote:
> That is the worst possible test plan.  It totally lacks organization and
> there is no hint to define when the feature set has been covered.  Ad
> hoc testing is a useful addition, but it cannot replace all the standard
> tests that have been used by the industry for decades.
> If you run literally hundreds of tests designed to ensure that your
> product conforms to ANSI/ISO standards then the bugs that are missed
> will be few and far between.  Unless you are bad at designing tests.
> Designing tests is busywork.  Desiging tests is boring.  Nobody wants to
> design tests, let alone interpret the results and define correct
> baselines.  But testing is very, very important.

I remember when I was with Great Bridge they said, "Oh, we are going to
have a test setup and do all sorts of testing to improve PostgreSQL."  I
told them I doubted their testing was going to shake out many more bugs
than our existing testing setup, and you know what, I was pretty much
right.  Sure, they found a few, but it wasn't much.

  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to