-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/25/2014 06:10 AM, Tim Flink wrote: > That being said, I'm not sure there is enough benefit to fight the > common usage of the term "unit testing". While they are checks by > the definitions I listed above, the cost of re-defining all "unit > tests" as "unit checks" would be rather high and I'm not convinced > that there's enough benefit there to justify the attempt.
Aye, this sounds like an attempt to redefine terms that are already in common use with a different meaning, and hence doomed to failure. Automated testing and acceptance testing are already different things, and the value of independent acceptance testing mostly lies in picking up "this workflow doesn't make any sense" and "if I do X and Y at the same time, Z breaks" kinds of usability and combinatorial errors that automated testing will blithely ignore (because it didn't occur to the developers to test it that way). Cheers, Nick. - -- Nick Coghlan Red Hat Hosted & Shared Services Software Engineering & Development, Brisbane Testing Solutions Team Lead Beaker Development Lead (http://beaker-project.org/) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTC/6VAAoJEHEkJo9fMO/Lp6IH/RZh8l60/vWDfHP17Yryyffi pe+2Zi8RLAhvald6KVRdb1MK0m6kUARVYvt8qpdkOXJcOIZgENw8dsqR3QVFxlXZ nJhEMEK1RwhhxrasYpD2s8VYNW+Ot7wzc5/JjIrxBKidlGkKICoGfG4ZOqxq4RW+ eYzGRw24foR6es5iRGLZi4COnXdPi3/3KAq3IijIbuCnxZUg+bCfhNRj1c+Bzq2E 0+38dh1xGdivBD3rKKwjcaBzp8TsUa6mWnSDq8LUrG+exn3uCxTu8wC1TMesx/Mg Uao1VjYggs56cEKfCQAn5g6GuScgcpFIoqQAlKZ5UrCu8zEeciJTTxk9yEdhIGQ= =P2LQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ qa-devel mailing list qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/qa-devel