test vs check naming consistency

[Nick Coghlan]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/25/2014 06:10 AM, Tim Flink wrote:
> That being said, I'm not sure there is enough benefit to fight the 
> common usage of the term "unit testing". While they are checks by
> the definitions I listed above, the cost of re-defining all "unit
> tests" as "unit checks" would be rather high and I'm not convinced
> that there's enough benefit there to justify the attempt.

Aye, this sounds like an attempt to redefine terms that are already in
common use with a different meaning, and hence doomed to failure.

Automated testing and acceptance testing are already different things,
and the value of independent acceptance testing mostly lies in picking
up "this workflow doesn't make any sense" and "if I do X and Y at the
same time, Z breaks" kinds of usability and combinatorial errors that
automated testing will blithely ignore (because it didn't occur to the
developers to test it that way).

Cheers,
Nick.

- -- 
Nick Coghlan
Red Hat Hosted & Shared Services
Software Engineering & Development, Brisbane

Testing Solutions Team Lead
Beaker Development Lead (http://beaker-project.org/)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTC/6VAAoJEHEkJo9fMO/Lp6IH/RZh8l60/vWDfHP17Yryyffi
pe+2Zi8RLAhvald6KVRdb1MK0m6kUARVYvt8qpdkOXJcOIZgENw8dsqR3QVFxlXZ
nJhEMEK1RwhhxrasYpD2s8VYNW+Ot7wzc5/JjIrxBKidlGkKICoGfG4ZOqxq4RW+
eYzGRw24foR6es5iRGLZi4COnXdPi3/3KAq3IijIbuCnxZUg+bCfhNRj1c+Bzq2E
0+38dh1xGdivBD3rKKwjcaBzp8TsUa6mWnSDq8LUrG+exn3uCxTu8wC1TMesx/Mg
Uao1VjYggs56cEKfCQAn5g6GuScgcpFIoqQAlKZ5UrCu8zEeciJTTxk9yEdhIGQ=
=P2LQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----