Regression testing: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:12, 7 June 2025

Revision as of 11:23, 16 August 2025

Line 13:

It may happen that when a feature is redesigned some of the same mistakes that were made in the original implementation of the feature also occur in the redesign. In most software development situations, it is considered [[Best Coding Practices|good coding practice]], when a bug is located and fixed, to record a test that exposes the bug and re-run that test regularly after subsequent changes to the program.<ref name="kolawa">{{cite book | last = Kolawa | first = Adam |author2=Huizinga, Dorota | title = Automated Defect Prevention: Best Practices in Software Management | url = http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470042125.html | year = 2007 | publisher = Wiley-IEEE Computer Society Press | page=73| isbn = 978-0-470-04212-0 }}</ref>

Although this may be done through [[manual testing]] procedures using programming techniques, it is often done using [[automated testing]] tools.<ref>[http://safari.oreilly.com/0201794292/ch08lev1sec4 Automate Regression Tests When Feasible], Automated Testing: Selected Best Practices, Elfriede Dustin, Safari Books Online</ref> Such a [[test suite]] contains software tools that allow the testing environment to execute all the regression [[Test case (software)|test case]]s automatically; many projects have automated [[Continuous integration]] systems to re-run all regression tests at specified intervals and report any failures (which could imply a regression or an out-of-date test).<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.drdobbs.com/tools/change-code-without-fear/206105233| title=Change Code Without Fear: Utilize a Regression Safety Net|last=daVeiga|first=Nada|work=[[Dr. Dobb's Journal]]| date=2008-02-06}}</ref>

Common strategies are to run such a system after every successful compile (for small projects), every night, or once a week. Those strategies can be automated by an external tool.