Talk:White-box testing

Mixing of hardware and software

I'm not so sure I like mixing of this term as it relates to both hardware and software. Maybe we could split this article into two sections? DRogers 19:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Upon first reading this article, I was confused by the mixing of software and hardware descriptions. In particular, the article talks about software and hardware testing in the same paragraph, making it especially difficult to understand which statements correspond to which type of white box testing. I support splitting this article into separate articles for each discipline.Justin 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This sentence

I disagree with this sentence: "Often, multiple programmers will write tests based on certain code, so as to gain varying perspectives on possible outcomes." Maybe I just don't understand it. But tests based on code shouldn't really be open for interpretation, and so shouldn't need varying perspectives. DRogers 19:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

doc with examples to design techniques

Hi, i added a doc which has examples to some white box design techniques. Feel free to add your comments. --Erkan Yilmaz 13:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad Start

I think this article gets off to a bad start. This sentence "White box testing (a.k.a. clear box testing, glass box testing or structural testing) uses an internal perspective of the system to design test cases based on internal structure." Is not very plesent to read, and it's hard to know what the author means by "the system." It should be more specific. Just changing "the system" to "a system" would help. 122.30.196.205 (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Simply Understand

test —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.152.81 (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC) The main thing in white box testing is this in performing by developer, tester. in this testing process the tester test all test case for expected results find out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.246.33.3 (talk) 04:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit

Walter Görlitz readded the copyedit tag without other comment after I completed my edit. I'd like to call this one done, so I hope he will let us know what remaining problems he sees.

Lfstevens (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Mostly the bullet points. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Assuming you meant "only the bullet points", I'll fix them and detag. Otherwise, don't keep us in suspense. Lfstevens (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Testplant is spam?

Hello, I do not understand why the testplant reference was considered a spam. Wouldn't it be considered plagiarism if I didn't reference them three times in the advantages section? Ash890 (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The link is http://www.testplant.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/06/BB_vs_WB_Testing-1.pdf. The website, http://www.testplant.com a commercial site. The guideline is WP:SPAMLINK, which reads: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." Wikipedia:Spam is more thorough. This company is in the market of selling their product, which is mentioned on the last page: "We would recommend that you try Eggplant as it delivers all of the benefits of black-box testing while overcoming nearly all of the cited limitations." It's unambiguous solicitation and not appropriate for an encyclopaedia article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Concerns about WP:RS

I've reverted this revert by Walter Görlitz, as it seemed to me that his concerns were mistaken or misplaced. While the previous couple of sources introduced by Ash890 were of dubious reliability, the latest three seemed reliable enough to me - journal published articles that had author names on them, contrary to the edit summary on the revert. While the quality of this article itself may be lacking (the disadvantages and advantages sections may not be best off as bullet points), I think the more egregious problems with sources have been resolved.  — daranz [ t ] 20:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I looked at the first source, which I just tagged as needing verification. Thanks for checking the full edit. I'm not sure if the other two sources are student papers or something else. I didn't look closely at them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Creation of White box article

Dear all,

i think that the idea of white box is so important that a specific article on this concept should be created.

Any ideas why it shouldn't ? Or maybe some suggestions on what it should include ?

All the best,
--Hgfernan (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

That's what this article is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Predatory publishing

Don't restore citations to predatory publishers, those are not reliable sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Is there a list of such source? Restoring until this is answered satisfactorily. I suggest you don't remove them until it's resolved, Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

This list is the best available resources. Look for Science & Engineering Research Support soCiety/SERSC in the publishers section (a publisher which accepted obviously fake articles in Who's Afraid of Peer Review? sting doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60) and International Journal of Computer Science Issues in the journals section (see also [1]). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Unless there's a restriction for a source at WP:RSN or some other place, or a guideline or policy to restrict their use, it makes no sense to remove sources like this. I've never heard this argument used before so I'm a bit apprehensive about removing them at this point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Fine, I've asked for a third opinion at WP:RSN, but predatory publishing and the above links really should be all you need here. I've tagged the article with {{accuracy}} in the meantime. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with removing those two sources, not because of some automatic blacklisting but because I've read them. Have you read them, Walter Görlitz? They're clearly sub-optimal papers.

1. The two papers are being used to support some overly generic definitions, which either fall under the WP:BLUESKY or would need to have some very strong sources, unless they're toned down a bit in their statement of generality.
2. At least [2] is clearly not adequate due to WP:CIRC. It references this very article.

Nemo 12:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

SERCS is also an OMICS Publishing Group affiliate, I'd link, but the blacklist prevents me from doing so. Searching for 'Sersc OMICS' should net you information about SERSC Computer Graphics 2015 conference, co-organized/published by SERCS/OMICS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, and I've yet to see an OMICS publication I'd confidently reference from an article. It's usually enough to give a cursory look to realise you shouldn't, although there might be some valid authors somewhere who published good work there by mistake. (So at a minimum the users who re-add such sources should first read them.) Nemo 12:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Lead section issues

This article's Lead Section is inconsistent with MOS:LEAD. Specifically:

- The first sentence does not need to list off 4 synonyms, and ideally should be written without the need for a parenthetical reference to blackbox testing MOS:LEADCLUTTER

- The lead paragraph should be split into multiple paragraphs MOS:LEADLENGTH

- The first paragraph should not contain such specific details MOS:OPEN

- The lead section is going into a great amount of detail. Ideally we should summarize information at the top, and then repeat it in more detail in sections further down the article MOS:INTRO DinosaurDucky (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)