Timeline for Why testing, by definition, cannot find deadlocks and stack overflows?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 22, 2013 at 11:43 | comment | added | Kate Paulk | Val, by "it" I mean the techniques in Beatty's article. Sorry for being unclear. | |
| Apr 22, 2013 at 9:19 | comment | added | Val | @KatePaulk, what do you refer by "it"? | |
| Apr 18, 2013 at 12:35 | comment | added | Kate Paulk | Actually, this is a little more detailed than the typical code review - not that this is a bad thing! It's more along the lines of detailed code analysis. | |
| Apr 18, 2013 at 6:46 | comment | added | Rsf | Code review might be defined as static testing, but usually developers are responsible for doing it (unless you work at Microsoft where testers participate in code reviews) | |
| Apr 17, 2013 at 12:33 | comment | added | Val | Isn't code review considered as a part of static testing? Is it different from formal verification? Do you define testing as something that does not detect the bugs? But let me +1 for pointing out that this was "code review" | |
| Apr 17, 2013 at 12:01 | history | answered | Rsf | CC BY-SA 3.0 |