Usually we think white-box testing has disadvantages of some sorts. But think again, if the developer’s role is changed a bit, the normal disadvantages may no longer exist at all.
Some thoughts about two previous assessments:
disadvantages … the tester needs to know and understand the code
test plan, execution, and coverage is more susceptible to changes in the underlying implementation
It depends on whether the developers also assume a testing implementation role. That is, if the developers are supposed to understand the testing framework or architecture and are responsible for writing internal test taps and hooking them up properly, then the tests are still white-box, but without most of the disadvantages we usually think of. In such a case, the disadvantage would be that it is difficult to find qualified developers, or that it will shift the developer and tester’s responsibility.
Recent trends, like test driven, agile, etc, are more and more promoting developer testing. One step further, would be to hook up the testing framework to unit tests. In this sense, the disadvantage of white-box would be, organizational chaos caused by role changes in people.
(Originally published on stackoverflow.com)
This work by minghuasweblog.wordpress.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
|This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.|
|Published on minghuasweblog.wordpress.com on Sep 28, 2011 @ 7:27 GMT|