From: truediogen@... (Vladimir)
Date: 2001-12-10T23:39:36+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:28086] Re: John Roth dolt (  Re: A challenge to proponents of Unit Testing. )

lrm@provida.no wrote in message news:<lT7Q7.9614$yB2.158772@news1.oke.nextra.no>...
> In comp.object John Roth <johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote:
> 
> > Let's think about this for a moment. 5 test cases appears to
> > be adequate for a black box test. You need one for equilateral,
> > three for isosceles and one for scalene. If you're deriving
> > more test cases, you're doing an open box test, based on the
> > actual implementation (or on some set of assumptions about
> > frequent defects, or some such.)
> 
> How about bad data? Won't you need tests to ensure that the code can
> handle bad (zero or negative) values for any combination of the sides?
> Isn't that 7 more tests (illegal data for: {a, b, c, a & b, a & c, b &
> c, a & b & c })?

also do not forget testing blindeness effect and use distinct values
for a, b and c which when used will not lead to a correct result even
in faulty implementation.