Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #9273

Re: Two stages of debugging

Newsgroups comp.programming
Date 2018-09-18 03:46 -0700
References <pnp2vs$1k1n$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ha177f-eee.ln1@gangtai.home.grep.be>
Message-ID <f3e4e83f-fd7d-496e-a8d9-5f77a35af280@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject Re: Two stages of debugging
From Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name>

Show all headers | View raw

On Tuesday, 18 September 2018 12:41:00 UTC+2, Wouter Verhelst  wrote:
> On 9/17/18 10:31 PM, Victor Porton wrote:
> > Which of the following two stages of debugging should be done first?
> > 
> > 1. manual testing
> 
> That's only useful while you're writing the code. At any point after
> that, it should be automated.

Debugging is not testing.  And manual vs automated testing just hints at
tests linked to the build/commit process, there is no difference as for
the tests themselves.  Debugging is "manual", but debugging is not testing.

> > 2. proof-reading the code
> 
> If you're interested in finding functional bugs (i.e., "the code should
> do X but does Y instead), then proofreading code is an unreliable
> method. Automated testing is a much more reliable way to do so.

Code reviews and testing should not be conflated, either: they do not even
serve the same purpose.

> > The purpose is to create quality code faster.
> 
> IME, the best way to do that is to have a formal "everything must be
> tested" policy.

Which is the 100% coverage nonsense, that you mean testing or that you
mean debugging... ;)

Julio

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Two stages of debugging Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> - 2018-09-17 23:31 +0300
  Re: Two stages of debugging David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-09-18 09:13 +0200
    Re: Two stages of debugging Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-18 03:39 -0700
  Re: Two stages of debugging Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-18 03:34 -0700
  Re: Two stages of debugging Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-09-18 12:40 +0200
    Re: Two stages of debugging Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-18 03:46 -0700
      Re: Two stages of debugging Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-09-18 13:08 +0200
        Re: Two stages of debugging Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-18 04:43 -0700
          Re: Two stages of debugging Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-09-18 16:00 +0200
            Re: Two stages of debugging Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-18 10:36 -0700
              Re: Two stages of debugging Jacob Sparre Andersen <jacob@jacob-sparre.dk> - 2018-09-19 07:51 +0200
                Re: Two stages of debugging Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-19 03:43 -0700
              On the usefulness of testing coverage (was: Re: Two stages of debugging) Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-09-19 13:46 +0200
                Re: On the usefulness of testing coverage (was: Re: Two stages of debugging) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-19 08:20 -0700
            Re: Two stages of debugging Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 12:02 -0700
              Re: Two stages of debugging Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-19 03:39 -0700
  Re: Two stages of debugging Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> - 2018-09-20 22:37 +0300
    Re: Two stages of debugging Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-20 12:53 -0700

csiph-web