tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36118108.post6260312602231133887..comments2023-12-06T00:17:28.519-08:00Comments on Creative Chaos: Redundancy?Matthewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05956714498778698672noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36118108.post-30220809368889028932008-08-11T12:35:00.000-07:002008-08-11T12:35:00.000-07:00luke -I'm relatively certain the original dev was ...luke -<BR/><BR/>I'm relatively certain the original dev was writing something in win32/GUI and did not have a test framework like selenium.<BR/><BR/>In my book, he could probably skip some of those tests. With selenium, he might be able to get down to just two: "Unit", or dev-facing, and Sellenium, or Customer facing.<BR/><BR/>It might be accurate to say: If you need more than two layers, you might want to look long and hard at your architecture stack.Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05956714498778698672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36118108.post-12992056897087597202008-08-11T09:38:00.000-07:002008-08-11T09:38:00.000-07:00It's not necessarily bad, but is that an intention...It's not necessarily bad, but is that an intentional test strategy? IOW, if you were designing tests for a product, would you design in 5 separate layers to be tested? Aren't extensively layered tests wasteful?<BR/><BR/>If completely black-box testing (say with Selenium) was super fast, would we be content for testing to be sufficient? Is it the case that we have layered tests now primarily because of run-time cost of those tests?Luke Closshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15052495242093903719noreply@blogger.com