True. Regressions tests do not guarantee bug are not introduced by changes. However, they
are a fundamental piece of the QA puzzle.
--- On Thu, 7/23/09, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Do no harm
To: "Wikimedia developers" <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Thursday, July 23, 2009, 9:50 AM
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:07 AM, dan
nessett<dnessett(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
[snip]
On the other hand, if there were regression tests
for
the main code and for the most important extensions, I could
make the change, run the regression tests and see if any
break. If some do, I could focus my attention on those
problems. I would not have to find every place the global is
referenced and see if the change adversely affects the
logic.
This only holds if the regression test would fail as a
result of the
change. This is far from a given for many changes and many
common
tests.
Not to mention the practical complications— many
extensions have
complicated configuration and/or external
dependencies. "make
test_all_extensions" is not especially realistic.
Automated tests are good, necessary even, but they don't
relieve you
of the burden of directly evaluating the impact of a broad
change.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l