Kent Quirk wrote: > Is automated testing intended for more than just battery life testing? > If not, is it really necessary for every activity to support it? If so, > what do you expect to accomplish? Will it actually save more than the > amount of time taken to implement it for a given activity?
As one of the instigators of the push toward automated testing, I should chime in with my two cents worth: Fully-automated testing of activities could indeed be a huge time sink, but I think there are some easy steps that should more than pay for themselves: a) Activity developers should write down use cases for each major feature, including a description for how to exercise that feature. This part is just engineering 101, and it is easily justified. It will help the testing team do manual testing too. b) It would also be helpful if each activity listed its assumptions about system files and its effect on the filesystem. We are thinking about removing unused system files to reduce bloat, so we need some way to determine whether removal of a system file causes activity breakage. If we had an exerciser script or storyboard (doesn't have to be automated; could be executed by a human) as well as some way to detect failure, then we could do regression testing. Automated testing is a laudable long-term goal, but in the short run we need something that is reasonably comprehensive, whether automated or not. It seems like a bad idea to depend on the testers to come up with ad-hoc test sequences for activities. _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
