Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!crackers!transfer!lectroid!jjmhome!smds!rh
From: rh@smds.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: SQA (was: Re: The Software Process - Watts Humphrey.)
Summary: automated testing
Keywords: SQA, quality
Message-ID: <224@smds.UUCP>
Date: 3 Nov 90 10:46:11 GMT
References: <9150@fy.sei.cmu.edu> <1711@blackbird.afit.af.mil> <884@epochsys.UUCP>
Organization: SMDS Inc., Concord, MA
Lines: 25


One thing I have come to appreciate is the value of automated testing.
In this scenario the test group is responsible for the control of and
the development of the test software -- they don't run the tests.  The
developers don't explicitly run the tests either.  Testing is automatically
triggered by checkin (or equivalent) scripts with checkin acceptance
being conditional on passing the test sequences.  And, of course,
testing is a service that can be requested at any time by a developer.

An SPR (software problem report) represents a failure in the testing
procedures -- it is the task of the test group to modify the testing
procedures to test for the problem.

An MR (modification request) is a dual task; the development group
does the modification and the test group develops the revised test
procedures.

One way to look at things is that testing is a service for development;
development is greatly simplified if comprehensive testing is unobtrusively
available.
-- 
Richard Harter, Software Maintenance and Development Systems, Inc.
Net address: jjmhome!smds!rh Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742
This sentence no verb.  This sentence short.  This signature done.