DOB correct if the dev isnt willing to verify their code works with at least one unit test then whats the point of development?
dave did you see the case of the pacemaker's recording of heart electrical activity solved a homicide in Australia? https://www.smh.com.au/national/pacemakers-electrical-memory-that-foiled-a-murderers-alibi-in-court-20030120-gdg4uz.html best regards m. ________________________________ From: Dave Newton <davelnew...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 11:31 AM To: Struts Users Mailing List <user@struts.apache.org> Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC: Introduction On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:43 AM Zahid Rahman <zahidr1...@gmail.com> wrote: > If the developer tests his own code then there is a danger that he will > pass his misunderstanding of specification. > Correct. > Anyway in the safety critical environments the one who wrote the code does > not do the testing. > That's simply not the case across the board: there are multiple tiers of testing, and the onus is on the developer to do the initial testing. For example, when I was writing pacemakers--you better believe we tested the *crap* out of our code. Were we the *only* ones testing? Of course not; there were *many* levels of testing--but it *started* with us. > Tests are also done on hardware electrical rigs , simulating feed to > sensors. > Yep. And when I was writing fuel pump controllers not only did *I* have a set of tests, so did the hardware guys, so did the combination of HW/SW guys, so did the verification group, so did whoever gave us our certification, etc. It's not entirely clear to me what your point is, or if you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Testing is, by necessity, the responsibility of everyone involved in the project, which includes the developer. d.
