Regression testing: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:51, 19 October 2004

Revision as of 21:02, 22 November 2004

Line 5:

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 is not unknown that when some feature is redesigned, the same mistakes will 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 Someis 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.

Regression testing is an integral part of the [[extreme programming]] software development methodology. In this methodology, design documents are replaced by extensive, repeatable, and automated testing of the entire software package at every stage in the [[software development cycle]].