Comments on: Sanity, Regression, Smoke etc… Do we need all these testing types? http://qablog.practitest.com/2009/01/sanity-regression-smoke-etc-do-we-need-all-these-testing-types/ Testing & QA Management blog Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:31:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Joel Montvelisky http://qablog.practitest.com/2009/01/sanity-regression-smoke-etc-do-we-need-all-these-testing-types/comment-page-1/#comment-43 Joel Montvelisky Fri, 30 Jan 2009 05:08:00 +0000 http://www.practitest.com/qablog/2009/01/sanity-regression-smoke-etc-do-we-need-all-these-testing-types/#comment-43 Hi Phil,<br/><br/>You are abosolutely right!<br/><br/>And the most frustrating part is that most of us answer the same thing, but with our own different names.<br/><br/>Thanks!<br/><br/>-joel Hi Phil,

You are abosolutely right!

And the most frustrating part is that most of us answer the same thing, but with our own different names.

Thanks!

-joel

]]> By: Philk http://qablog.practitest.com/2009/01/sanity-regression-smoke-etc-do-we-need-all-these-testing-types/comment-page-1/#comment-42 Philk Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:20:00 +0000 http://www.practitest.com/qablog/2009/01/sanity-regression-smoke-etc-do-we-need-all-these-testing-types/#comment-42 I hate to think how much time and effort has been spent debating these and how much space has been used in in the forums<br/><br/>I'll just direct people here from now on !!<br/><br/>:) I hate to think how much time and effort has been spent debating these and how much space has been used in in the forums

I’ll just direct people here from now on !!

:)

]]> By: Joel Montvelisky http://qablog.practitest.com/2009/01/sanity-regression-smoke-etc-do-we-need-all-these-testing-types/comment-page-1/#comment-41 Joel Montvelisky Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:33:00 +0000 http://www.practitest.com/qablog/2009/01/sanity-regression-smoke-etc-do-we-need-all-these-testing-types/#comment-41 Thanks Mark,<br/><br/>I also think that too many people and forums have been making too much fuzz about naming conventions.<br/><br/>I believe we agree that at the end of the day is the content that matters.<br/><br/>Cheers!<br/><br/>-joel Thanks Mark,

I also think that too many people and forums have been making too much fuzz about naming conventions.

I believe we agree that at the end of the day is the content that matters.

Cheers!

-joel

]]> By: Mark Crowther http://qablog.practitest.com/2009/01/sanity-regression-smoke-etc-do-we-need-all-these-testing-types/comment-page-1/#comment-40 Mark Crowther Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:45:00 +0000 http://www.practitest.com/qablog/2009/01/sanity-regression-smoke-etc-do-we-need-all-these-testing-types/#comment-40 Hiya Joel,<br/><br/>Good post. Perfectly valid list of test types that no doubt I and others can readily say "well, for me...nnn test type is for nnn reason".<br/><br/>I'm not sure that it matters overall so long as we're not confusing ourselves our others. Start calling smoke tests system tests or acceptance test integration and it could get interesting ;]<br/><br/>The objective of the testing is the key and the context in which they're being executed. Sticking to reasonably recognised names is useful though!<br/><br/>Regards,<br/><br/>Mark Crowther Hiya Joel,

Good post. Perfectly valid list of test types that no doubt I and others can readily say “well, for me…nnn test type is for nnn reason”.

I’m not sure that it matters overall so long as we’re not confusing ourselves our others. Start calling smoke tests system tests or acceptance test integration and it could get interesting ;]

The objective of the testing is the key and the context in which they’re being executed. Sticking to reasonably recognised names is useful though!

Regards,

Mark Crowther

]]>