Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eric Sosman Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Calling deprecated methods Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 16:24:16 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <40184664@f38.n261.z1.binkp.net> <1782037676@f38.n261.z1.binkp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 21:24:16 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b83cd3450b2cb7410d8dd0ef394c01b0"; logging-data="10383"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19/gqvLI0txDhUS+OAb/bJx" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 In-Reply-To: <1782037676@f38.n261.z1.binkp.net> Content-Language: en-US Cancel-Lock: sha1:ozmT/bksf0+H4oZn2lbMZgxK5dI= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:37857 On 12/15/2017 4:08 PM, Kiwi User (Kiwi User) wrote: > On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 22:31:59 -0500, Richard Damon wrote: > >> On 12/13/17 12:30 AM, Kiwi User (Kiwi User) wrote: >>>> I know nothing of this sort of testing though I am curious to know how >>>> you'd find the data that would generate errors when a method accepts a >>>> number and handles 1, 1.5, and 2 just fine but 1.6 returns an >>>> incorrect result. >>>> >>> Traditionally, you'd read the design specification. The one thing you >>> MUST NOT do is to look at the code while you're writing tests. You're >>> trying to test that it does what the requirements say it should and not >>> what the coder wrote because he may have misunderstood the spec. >> > I should have extended this to say that testers should read javadocs output but > not the actual source code. Is there a place for coverage analysis in this scheme of things? -- esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid Eleven hundred thirty-one days to go.