Revision as of 18:05, 11 July 2019 edit Citation bot (talk \| contribs) Bots 5,868,351 edits m Removed URL that duplicated unique identifier. Removed accessdate with no specified URL. Removed parameters. \| You can use this bot yourself. Report bugs here.\| Activated by User:Marianne Zimmerman ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:20, 11 August 2019 edit undo Bender235 (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors 472,811 edits mNo edit summary Next edit →
Line 70: It is only as precise as the specification and specifications are typically imprecise. It compares poorly with other techniques to find bugs (f.ex. [[static program analysis]]). If different inputs are randomly selected on each test run, this can create problems for [[continuous integration]] because the same tests will pass or fail randomly.<ref name="so">{{cite web\|url=~~http~~https://stackoverflow.com/~~questions~~q/636353~~/is-it-a-bad-practice-to-randomly-generate-test-data~~ \|title=Is it a bad practice to randomly-generate test data?\|website=stackoverflow.com\|accessdate=15 November 2017}}</ref> Some argue that it would be better to thoughtfully cover all relevant cases with manually constructed tests in a white-box fashion, than to rely on randomness.<ref name="so" />

Random testing: Difference between revisions