On 21/03/14 11:47, David Pires wrote:
snip
I've yet to decide if some of the testcases are a bit too thorough
or if
they are just about right. I guess we can agree and assume that the
amount of bugs is somewhat correlating with how deep the tests
are. As I
see it though, the deeper and specific the tests are, the more
mechanic
running them is. Which leads us to exploratory testing...
I agree that some of the tests may seem excessively long, and perhaps
even dense. But, and even falling in the role of advocating my own
cause since it was I who wrote some of the longer tests, I believe
that in some specific programs the existence of more complex and
demanding tests is justifiable in what QA is concerned and aims.
I can agree with this - we just need to look at which are *long*, which
could be *longer, which could be *shorter* - or as I mentioned in
another reply - 2 testcases, which would just need robust planning when
it came to calling for tests.
snip
IMO, a reliable option would be the use of a automated testing tool,
such as Autopilot, extending features for testing applications such
as unit testing, regression testing, GUI testing, Web testing,
distributed testing and many others.
I love the idea of Autopilot, but as you know we've been looking at it
for 2 cycles now and aren't much further forward - problems with
Autopilot and it's interaction with GTK2 don't make it easy.
snip
--
Ubuntu Forum Council Member
Xubuntu QA Lead
--
xubuntu-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
