-----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/)