Timeline for What problem does automated user interface testing solve?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 12, 2011 at 20:36 | history | edited | S.Lott | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 164 characters in body
|
| Jul 12, 2011 at 18:14 | comment | added | S.Lott | @Mason Wheeler: Taking it to it's "logical conclusion" isn't the point. The point is that manual testing is error-prone and automated testing is considerably more trustworthy. Without taking a rigid, fundamental stance, folks quibble and wiffle-waffle, and wind up with the situation I have where testing is only semi-automated and everyone makes excuses for why close-enough is okay just this once. | |
| Jul 12, 2011 at 18:08 | comment | added | Mason Wheeler | -1 for the fundamentalism, as Michael put it. See joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/12/03.html for an explanation of just how ridiculous that attitude is when taken to its logical conclusion. | |
| Jul 12, 2011 at 15:45 | history | edited | S.Lott | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 27 characters in body
|
| Jul 12, 2011 at 15:25 | comment | added | S.Lott | "And I'd say that the fundamentalism displayed in the last two sentences is counterproductive". "Any program feature without an automated test simply doesn't exist" just a quote from some else's book. If you find the book counterproductive, take it up with the author, please. | |
| Jul 12, 2011 at 15:24 | history | edited | S.Lott | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 210 characters in body
|
| Jul 12, 2011 at 15:23 | comment | added | S.Lott | "Exploratory testing"? Is there a "fail" mode? If not, it's really exploration -- a good thing, but not testing. | |
| Jul 12, 2011 at 14:46 | comment | added | Lyndon Vrooman | @S.Lott - Michael and StuperUser had it right. Manual and prefereably exploratory testing. | |
| Jul 12, 2011 at 14:41 | comment | added | StuperUser |
Automated testing is the only way to demonstrate that the functionality exists. No it isn't. Exploratory testing or manually executed tests demonstrates the functionality exists. It's not as good as automated testing, but automated testing isn't the only way to test.
|
|
| Jul 12, 2011 at 14:38 | comment | added | Michael Borgwardt | @S.Lott: presumably manual testing. Automated testing is nice, but not everything. It can't spot many unexpected error modes (such as layout problem). And I'd say that the fundamentalism displayed in the last two sentences is counterproductive. | |
| Jul 12, 2011 at 14:32 | comment | added | S.Lott | "testers write automated checks". That's how testers should do their jobs. "testers ever get a chance to test" doesn't make much sense to me. Can you explain what this could mean? | |
| Jul 12, 2011 at 14:17 | comment | added | Lyndon Vrooman | +1 for most of your points. However, if automated test cases are the only way to demonstrate that the functionality exists, do the testers ever get a chance to test, or just write automated checks? | |
| Jul 12, 2011 at 14:04 | history | answered | S.Lott | CC BY-SA 3.0 |