Regression testing: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:28, 24 December 2004

Revision as of 02:29, 24 December 2004

Line 3:

Common methods of regression testing are re-running previously run tests and checking whether previously-fixed faults have reemerged.

Experience has shown that as software is developed, this kind of reemergence of faults is unfortunately quite common. Sometimes it occurs because a fix gets lost through poor [[revision control]] practices (or simple human error in revision control), but just as often a fix for a problem will be "fragile" - if some other change is made to the program, the fix no longer works. Finally, it ishas often been the knowncase that when some feature is redesigned, the same mistakes will often be made in the redesign that were made in the original implementation of the feature.

Therefore, in most software development situations it is considered good practice that when a bug is located and fixed, a test that exposes the bug is recorded and regularly reperformed after subsequent changes to the program. This is often done with a 'test suite', a tool that gives an environment to execute all the regression test cases automatically ; some projects even set up automated systems to automatically re-run all regression tests at specified intervals (usually daily or weekly) and report any regressions. Or, if you are using [[make]], you could set up your makefile to automatically run the regression tests after every successful compile.