Skip to main content
Software Engineering

Return to Answer

Copy edited. (its = possessive, it's = "it is" or "it has".)
Source Link
edit approved Mar 11, 2012 at 16:19
Peter Mortensen
edit approved Mar 11, 2012 at 16:19
Peter Mortensen
  • 1k
  • 2
  • 12
  • 15

ItsIt's always a cost-benefit analysis. WhatsWhat's the cost of the feature breaking to you? If the cost is high, then test well and thoroughly. If the cost is low, test lightly or not at all.

There's also the cost of time-to-market to consider. Maybe itsit's better for you to deliver a mostly working feature thenthan to be late delivering a completely working feature.

ItsIt's almost impossible to answer these questions in the general IMO.

I think itsit's more important to preserve the ability to test in the case that some feature turns out to be more important than you originally realized.

Its always a cost-benefit analysis. Whats the cost of the feature breaking to you? If the cost is high, then test well and thoroughly. If the cost is low test lightly or not at all.

There's also the cost of time-to-market to consider. Maybe its better for you to deliver a mostly working feature then to be late delivering a completely working feature.

Its almost impossible to answer these questions in the general IMO.

I think its more important to preserve the ability to test in the case that some feature turns out to be more important than you originally realized.

It's always a cost-benefit analysis. What's the cost of the feature breaking to you? If the cost is high, then test well and thoroughly. If the cost is low, test lightly or not at all.

There's also the cost of time-to-market to consider. Maybe it's better for you to deliver a mostly working feature than to be late delivering a completely working feature.

It's almost impossible to answer these questions in the general IMO.

I think it's more important to preserve the ability to test in the case that some feature turns out to be more important than you originally realized.

deleted 5 characters in body
Source Link
Doug T.
Doug T.
  • 11.7k
  • 5
  • 47
  • 69

Its always a cost-benefit analysis. Whats the cost of the feature breaking to you? If the cost is high, then test well and thoroughly. If the cost is low test lightly or not at all.

There's also the cost of time-to-market to consider. Maybe its better for you to deliver a mostly working feature then to be late delivering a completely working feature late.

Its almost impossible to answer these questions in the general IMO.

I think its more important to preserve the ability to test in the case that some feature turns out to be more important than you originally realized.

Its always a cost-benefit analysis. Whats the cost of the feature breaking to you? If the cost is high, then test well and thoroughly. If the cost is low test lightly or not at all.

There's also the cost of time-to-market to consider. Maybe its better for you to deliver a mostly working feature then to be late delivering a completely working feature late.

Its almost impossible to answer these questions in the general IMO.

I think its more important to preserve the ability to test in the case that some feature turns out to be more important than you originally realized.

Its always a cost-benefit analysis. Whats the cost of the feature breaking to you? If the cost is high, then test well and thoroughly. If the cost is low test lightly or not at all.

There's also the cost of time-to-market to consider. Maybe its better for you to deliver a mostly working feature then to be late delivering a completely working feature.

Its almost impossible to answer these questions in the general IMO.

I think its more important to preserve the ability to test in the case that some feature turns out to be more important than you originally realized.

Source Link
Doug T.
Doug T.
  • 11.7k
  • 5
  • 47
  • 69

Its always a cost-benefit analysis. Whats the cost of the feature breaking to you? If the cost is high, then test well and thoroughly. If the cost is low test lightly or not at all.

There's also the cost of time-to-market to consider. Maybe its better for you to deliver a mostly working feature then to be late delivering a completely working feature late.

Its almost impossible to answer these questions in the general IMO.

I think its more important to preserve the ability to test in the case that some feature turns out to be more important than you originally realized.