Talk:Equivalence partitioning: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by 82.9.198.251 - "→Is it any good?: " |
|||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
Month = 3 in that case wouldn't be equivalent to Month = 4; by that I mean the application wouldn't treat these values in the same way. Month = 3 would be a 'dirty' partition (an invalid partition). <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.9.198.251|82.9.198.251]] ([[User talk:82.9.198.251|talk]]) 21:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Month = 3 in that case wouldn't be equivalent to Month = 4; by that I mean the application wouldn't treat these values in the same way. Month = 3 would be a 'dirty' partition (an invalid partition). <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.9.198.251|82.9.198.251]] ([[User talk:82.9.198.251|talk]]) 21:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
If you do your analysis properly then yes it's good. The point is that if you'd wrote that algorithm and documented it (this is essential), then I suppose the Tester would make 3 a special equivalence class to check for... Furthermore, remember that it's blackbox and we trust in the developers to have tested their code previously -[[User:Tprosser|Tprosser]] ([[User talk:Tprosser|talk]]) 10:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 10:00, 13 August 2009
Any suggestions about what to improve here? It was tagged, but why?
External Link
The external link appears to go to a site that does not appear to fulfill the Wikipedia guide on external links. As such (and as it doesn't seem to add anything to this article), I am going to remove it.
Any objections?
Jtowler 18:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
White box vs Grey box
IMHO the second example (using EP for "white box testing") specifically describes a case which would be called "grey box testing". In the example you use the knowledge of the internal behaviors to create the specific EPs. But after that you would use the EPs you found to test one value out of every partition at the interface level. No internal data structures are tested. The internal behavior is just examined to construct the test cases which is a pure example of grey-box testing. 78.54.16.163 (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it any good?
Are there any references that evaluate whether the theory of Equivalence Partitioning holds any merit? It seems fundamentally flawed to me. What if I wrote an algorithm that caused divide-by-zero error when the month was 3? Equivalence Partitioning seems to say that there's no point testing month = 3 if I've already tested month = 4. It would seem dangerous to use this principle for Black Box testing, less so for Grey/Gray Box testing.
Hmmm... am I supposed to be able to edit this discussion directly like this? Looks like I have way too much power, eg. could delete previous discussion ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.128.102.155 (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Month = 3 in that case wouldn't be equivalent to Month = 4; by that I mean the application wouldn't treat these values in the same way. Month = 3 would be a 'dirty' partition (an invalid partition). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.198.251 (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
If you do your analysis properly then yes it's good. The point is that if you'd wrote that algorithm and documented it (this is essential), then I suppose the Tester would make 3 a special equivalence class to check for... Furthermore, remember that it's blackbox and we trust in the developers to have tested their code previously -Tprosser (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)