Am 14.02.2013 13:17, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > Il 14/02/2013 12:44, Andreas Färber ha scritto: >> What seems more likely is that we would >> have written a qtest which checked for the same wrong >> behaviour we incorrectly put into the code, which >> doesn't help anybody. > > Hmm, that's not how I write tests... You write them as black boxes, and > if things don't match what you expect, you either replicate the qtest on > real hardware or check the datasheet.
We seem in violent agreement once again. :) My point was, if there's an error in the device, then either the test case had a thinko or there's no test case covering that particular code path (which I was just lobbying against). You're saying, if one writes one's test cases right, then there's no bugs in those code paths. True. Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
