Jueves, 17 Enero 2008

¿Quieres mejorar el testeo de tu software, y no sabes por dónde empezar? ¿Encuentras mucha teoría al respecto, pero no ves claro cómo aplicarla en tu caso particular? Puede entonces que te resulten útiles las Recetas para el diseño de casos de test que hemos empezado a publicar en nuestro sitio web (bajo Recursos).

Recetas para el diseño de casos de test

Nuestro objetivo es definir una librería o colección de recetas de diseño de casos de test tales que, una vez seleccionada una receta adecuada a la situación concreta, indiquen al testeador cómo realizar los pasos necesarios para generar los casos de test.

De momento hemos incluido la primera receta: testeo de dominio mediante particiones equivalentes; más adelante esperamos incluir otras recetas.

Proceedings de JTS2007

Estas recetas parten de nuestro artículo publicado en los proceedings de las Jornadas sobre el Testeo de Software, JTS2007. Dicho artículo, junto con el resto de los publicados por los ponentes, los podéis encontrar en formato PDF en la página de proceedings de JTS2007.

¡Y no olvides que ya puedes inscribirte en las Jornadas de este año, JTS2008!

2 comentarios sobre “Recetas de testeo en los proceedings de JTS2007”

  1. Jeck dijo:

    The problem is that coruts can’t just hear any arguments. They can only hear arguments relevant to the issues of law in the case. In the case of OccupyLSX, the camp was defending claims brought against it by the City of London Corporation. Essentially, the latter brought an eviction case against the former. This case comprised a series of legal claims. OccupyLSX defended each claim by presenting evidence to rebut the evidence adduced by the City of London in support of each claim. None of the legal claims made against OccupyLSX were political issues. OccupyLSX did not make any Part 20 claims (Counterclaims) against the City of London.I fail to see how OccupyLSX could have obtained sufficient cause of action or raised the funds necessary to cover the costs to fight a political case through the coruts. Courts do not deal with purely political issues. There has to be a legal issue. If the issues are mixed, they separate the legal from the political. In civil litigation, if you lose you normally have to pay the other side’s costs. This would preclude the camp from bringing a legally spurious case against the City of London Corporation.It might have been different if OccupyLSX had actually formulated political demands aimed at the City of London Corporation which overlapped with a legal claim. The key problem with taking that approach was the OccupyLSX didn’t have a very coherent political aim and did not focus its aim on arguable legal issues. For example, we could have collectively declared that we wished to live on the streets of the City of London Corporation’s jurisdiction and we wished to live in a democracy pursuant to our human rights and then argued that the City of London Corporation was a profoundly undemocratic local authority because it does not operate according to the received wisdoms and established law as to what a proper democracy is. Perhaps future protests could go into the City of London on this basis alone. The trick is focus the argument. I’d like to see the City squirm as they have to accept people are entitled to move into their area, even without anywhere to live, and are entitled to have democratic control over their local authority. However, OccupyLSX never had sufficient political coherence to formulate a sophisticated attack like that. Perhaps a future camp could?

  2. evaabpwjd dijo:

    2YpA18 qzzlzcvtykof

Deje un comentario

*
Teclea la palabra del recuadro, por favor, para comprobar que eres una persona y no un proceso de spam. << Anti-Spam Image



Blog del grupo SQUaC. ¿Conoces nuestros servicios? testeo de software; etc.

SQUaC, una web del ITI