|
Actually, I am shocked this obvious answer is not an option in the survey. If it compiles, ship it - what can go wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that is Microsoft's philosophy.
|
|
|
|
|
In our department we program all the machine's logics (GUI, movement control, CNC, PLC...) then, once we have the machine mounted in the workshop we start downloading our code to the controllers installed in the machine and then we start testing our job. After some time, we hand a manual copy to the guys in our company which will program the machine to execute one specific part. This is what we call the second testing stage. After that has been finished we call our customer who comes to our factory with some operators that will use the machine. We give a training to those operators and they test again the machine. After that we install the machine at the customer's facility when we do a second training to the operators and again everything is tested.
Of course then we start with the technical assistance remotely, but this is not called testing, this is normally well... another thing...
|
|
|
|
|
so do we, its instane!
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence."
<< please vote!! >>
|
|
|
|
|
And I want a sign off in blood, I want test cases that are verified and the business owners first born as hostage. And that only after the business has verified and validated every number that come out of the dammed application.
You work for a bank, you get it right or you don't get it at all(this has been known to happen all too often).
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
We test our own code. After that some people at the customer test our code. After that the users get to test it... In a live production environment that is
In rare occassions stuff really breaks, as in the user can not continue what he is doing. No big deal mostly. The customer calls and we have a new version in five minutes.
In really very few occassions the user tests in a test environment. And when they do they have no idea what they're doing. That's particulary funny since we build our software exactly how the customer wants it
It's an OO world.
public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{
public void DoWork(){ throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}
|
|
|
|
|
...they normally don't know about it...
Why can't I be applicable like John? - Me, April 2011 ----- Beidh ceol, caint agus craic againn - Seán Bán Breathnach ----- Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo! ----- Just because a thing is new don’t mean that it’s better - Will Rogers, September 4, 1932
|
|
|
|
|
We do testing in house first, then roll out to a select group of "safe, clever users" then a pilot then GA
|
|
|
|
|
We test in every way possible. DO-178B (current project, Level A)
Current project we've been working on is 10000 lines of source code (This is noticeably very small). We've thus far taken about 2 years to test it with +3 resources working on the project day in, day out.
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence."
<< please vote!! >>
modified 20-May-13 5:40am.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes.. sometimes we need Real User who very less IQ,since we have to build User friendly (idiot proof actually )applications
|
|
|
|
|
This may be a good reason to hire a morons to validation team.
|
|
|
|
|
Amol_B wrote: sometimes we need Real User who very less IQ,since
Ignoring the obvious, nice way to describe those who generously pay our wages.
“Education is not the piling on of learning, information, data, facts, skills, or abilities - that's training or instruction - but is rather making visible what is hidden as a seed” “One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated”
Sir Thomas More (1478 – 1535)
|
|
|
|
|
Amol_B wrote: we need Real User who very less IQ
You can find them in Q&A
Why can't I be applicable like John? - Me, April 2011 ----- Beidh ceol, caint agus craic againn - Seán Bán Breathnach ----- Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo! ----- Just because a thing is new don’t mean that it’s better - Will Rogers, September 4, 1932
|
|
|
|