Content deleted Content added
Jnestorius (talk | contribs) |
Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5 |
||
Line 11:
Sometimes re-emergence occurs because a fix gets lost through poor [[revision control]] practices (or simple [[human error]] in revision control). Often, a fix for a problem will be "[[software brittleness|fragile]]" in that it fixes the problem in the narrow case where it was first observed but not in more general cases which may arise over the lifetime of the software. Frequently, a fix for a problem in one area inadvertently causes a [[software bug]] in another area.
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
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to re-run all regression tests at specified intervals and report any failures (which could imply a regression or an out-of-date test).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>
| |||