Re^3: System testing a WWW transaction application

Functional Tests are a different beast than Unit Tests, though if you don't have effective Unit Testing, jumping in to Functional (or Acceptance) Testing is like catching rain in buckets when you should have patched the holes in the roof first.

Comment on Re^3: System testing a WWW transaction application

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re^3: System testing a WWW transaction application by IlyaM (Parson) on Jul 24, 2002 at 16:43 UTC
I'd say they are quite independant. Ideally you need both of them but in reallity it is better to have some tests rather not having them at all. If I were dragonchild I would teach QA-staff to use some non-programmer friendly tool (<shameless plug>HTTP::WebTest</shameless plug>) and ask them to start writting functional tests. Conserning unit tests: when you have big pile of cra^H^Hcode it is hard to implement missing unit tests at once. In most cases you have no time and/or motivation to do this work. However it is not hard and IMHO sufficient to start writting unit tests for all new or changed code. -- Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/)	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re^3: System testing a WWW transaction application
by IlyaM (Parson) on Jul 24, 2002 at 16:43 UTC

If I were dragonchild I would teach QA-staff to use some non-programmer friendly tool (<shameless plug>HTTP::WebTest</shameless plug>) and ask them to start writting functional tests. Conserning unit tests: when you have big pile of cra^H^Hcode it is hard to implement missing unit tests at once. In most cases you have no time and/or motivation to do this work. However it is not hard and IMHO sufficient to start writting unit tests for all new or changed code.

--
Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/)

[reply]