Talk:Smoke testing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would be really great if someone knowlegdable could add to the definition for the computer programming context which is not there yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dykstranet (talk • contribs) , and edited by 206.213.251.31

[edit] Software usage

Hi there; I'm not familiar with "Smoke testing" although many people in the Open Source programming movement seem to use it. It sounds like it might be the same thing as "Regression testing" combined with "Integration testing". What do you think?

OrangUtanUK 12:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the two kinds of testing you have mentioned are different from Smoke testing. The idea behind Smoke test is that it's a basic quick test - which would show up major problems but is not normally as exhaustive as "real" testing. Regression testing checks whether known fixed bugs have reappeared. Integration testing checks that individual modules work after being put together (i.e. without re-testing the functionality covered by individual module test, aka unit test). It may help if you think of the electrical engineering smoke test - plugging in the system and seeing no smoke tells you that it's not so broken that it burns up, but doesn't really verify whether the circuit actually works. --Romanski 19:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plumbing with electronics and software?

Does it make any sense to have the plumbing article included with the electronics and software articles? This sounds like really there should be two articles: plumbing smoke tests and electroncs smoke tests, with the latter including a short note on the software usage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.193.2.136 (talk • contribs) .

Speaking as an electrical engineer/software engineer and a homeowner who has done some plumbing, I'd say that the concept of the "smoke test" is sufficiently general to be discussed the way the article is doing it today; I wouldn't support the splitting of the article.
Atlant 13:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The articles should be split. There are no general statements made about "smoke testing" that apply to smoke testing that cannot apply to almost any kind of "testing". I.e. there is almost nothing in common with electrical, software and woodwind smoke testing other than the name. Woodwind and plumbing (and automotive) are the only ones that actually use the same methodology and can have general statements made. This should be split into at least 3 articles. —Pengo 12:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think any purpose would be served by splitting the article. The software usage is arguably derived from all the others (though mostly electronics).  Randall Bart   Talk  19:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)