We come to the same conclusion, so that's okay. But for the sake of arguments:
2008/10/6, Rob Hamerling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > The 'intermediate' libraries (prerequisites for other libraries) will > generally be for relatively simple common 'lower layer' services and > should have been tested independently. The 'intermediate' library case defines a 4-level test: board_file x test_file -> intermediate_file -> interface_hardware/software An example of this is print.jal and I fully agree that the underlaying interfaces should and *could* be tested separate. But an other example is (yet to be created) i2c layer. This one should be tested extensivly on each hardware_lib version, since it has to deal with both the state mechanism in the slave and in the master hardware. The (stateless) software interface will be less bug-prone. My original issue came up at a 3-level test: board_file x test_file -> interface_hardware/software You state that both the hardware and software interface should be tested independent. This is true, but does not mean they have to be tested with an other test-program. Even stronger: they should be exchangeble and have the same interface and to ensure compatibility, it should preferably (also) be tested by the same test program. But again: that's just for the sake of arguments. I'll make a copy of this test program for each interface. Joep --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
