Dann Corbit wrote:
> That is the worst possible test plan. It totally lacks organization and
> there is no hint to define when the feature set has been covered. Ad
> hoc testing is a useful addition, but it cannot replace all the standard
> tests that have been used by the industry for decades.
>
> If you run literally hundreds of tests designed to ensure that your
> product conforms to ANSI/ISO standards then the bugs that are missed
> will be few and far between. Unless you are bad at designing tests.
>
> Designing tests is busywork. Desiging tests is boring. Nobody wants to
> design tests, let alone interpret the results and define correct
> baselines. But testing is very, very important.
I remember when I was with Great Bridge they said, "Oh, we are going to
have a test setup and do all sorts of testing to improve PostgreSQL." I
told them I doubted their testing was going to shake out many more bugs
than our existing testing setup, and you know what, I was pretty much
right. Sure, they found a few, but it wasn't much.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
