David- Saturday, April 8, 2006, 4:26:49 AM, you wrote:
> In a way, yes, but on the other hand, I worked at one place that had > around 5 imaging products and they all used a couple of common > libraries. It made sense in this case for QA to track which versions > of the libraries were used in the build of which products. Also since > they were Shared Libraries (DLLs), they would switch out libraries > and move back to older versions to track when a "bug" was introduced. > They also had a Library test tool, which exercised the API. Maybe they "exorcised" it... <g> There's a fine line between unit testing and white-box testing. I write api test harnesses from the QA end of things, but I expect that by the time I get to run my test suite the api will already have passed development's unit tests. There may be overlap, and probably should be, but I see the two as functionally different. But less so now that XP's test-before-code methodology has taken hold. -- -Mark Wieder [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
