tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5948141587422980338.post334232544151617318..comments2023-07-29T14:44:21.646+02:00Comments on The Tester's Headache: Another Regression Test TrapSimon Morleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10629592766073538811noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5948141587422980338.post-89374687315303827882013-03-31T22:03:16.952+02:002013-03-31T22:03:16.952+02:00Hi Michael,
Thanks for the link.
Yes, I see we h...Hi Michael,<br /><br />Thanks for the link.<br /><br />Yes, I see we highlighted one of the same wikipedia paragraphs. In my refined definition I would have trouble keeping much of the wikipedia definition - I've italicized the problematical ones:-<br /><br />"Regression testing <i><b>can</b></i> be used to <i><b>test a system efficiently</b></i> by <i><b>systematically selecting</b></i> the <i><b>appropriate minimum set of tests</b></i> needed to <i><b>adequately cover a particular change</b></i>."<br /><br />That's most of the paragraph…. Stripping these out would leave a paragraph devoid of adding any information.<br /><br />I'm not sure I follow your two concepts of regression testing - one that focuses on repetition of tests - this is presumably an early warning system. Or? But it doesn't really state what assumptions about the conditions of usage or analysis are. Repetition of tests will work better under some conditions compared to others, but is problematical when those conditions for usage are not stated. I would love to see figures that talk to how important the test selection part of test repetition is. A test that never fails might give some positive confirmation that is desired - indeed that might be the scope. But repetition has many unstated assumptions and them remaining unstated is problematical for me.<br /><br />The other concept - that of a focus on making sure the quality of the product has not got worse - is problematical (to me) for two reasons. (1) There are conditions under which this would apply - possibly acceptance tests or customer-agreed tests that would be re-used - but other conditions where it might not apply (i.e. a test that is repeated but doesn't add anything to the picture of product quality - it might even be obsolete for some purpose of detecting regressions).<br />(2) Making sure of quality not getting worse via a test is problematical as it implies that the test/s or testing will "make sure of quality not getting worse". I'm not sure you meant that interpretation anyway, but I could think there are some that will let the test be the arbiter of quality. This /might/ be ok if the assumptions about the scope, purpose and usage of those tests are stated - indeed if the tests are declared as conformance/acceptance and are an agreed arbitor - but that is often missed - sometimes not even thought about.<br /><br />On the link - I liked the allusion to information value -> that's an area I want to emphasize more.<br /><br />Thanks!Simon Morleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10629592766073538811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5948141587422980338.post-34647920165639483382013-03-31T19:43:29.998+02:002013-03-31T19:43:29.998+02:00Hi, Simon...
You might be interested in this: ht...Hi, Simon...<br /><br />You might be interested in this: http://www.developsense.com/presentations/2012-09-KWSQA-Regression.pdf<br /><br />In there, I propose some refinements to the Wikipedia definition, and emphasize that there are two concepts of regression testing. One is focused on repetition of tests; the other is focused on making sure that the quality of the product has not got worse. It's a mistake, I would argue, to pay attention to only one of these and to ignore the other.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />---Michael B.Michael Bolton http://www.developsense.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027725699187903416noreply@blogger.com