Talk:Fault coverage

Two different topics in one page

Fault coverage and test coverage are not identical concepts.

Moreover, it is strange to have test coverage introduced as a subsection of fault coverage given that it is more general and more popular than fault coverage (Google: 915 000 entries for "test coverage" vs 355 000 entries for "fault coverage"). Logically, the two pages should be permuted: test coverage should be the main one and fault coverage should redirect to it.

Vasywriter (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ugh - yes. See comment below as well. CodeCurmudgeon (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article online, and I think that this article is plagiarizing it: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Fault_coverage SchzmighitibopDude (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwand is just another way to view Wikipedia articles, so that article you're referencing is this article. – BrandonXLF (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also code coverage

There is an article for code coverage where it incorrectly equates "test coverage" to "code coverage" so there is definitely a need to clean up this area around "software testing coverage" CodeCurmudgeon (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split

First, I can see how the terms "Test coverage" and "Fault coverage" can be discussed in one page, however, as presently written, the necessary concepts are not addressed.

Second, there are two ways to think of "Fault coverage":

Fault coverage (fault tolerance) is a requirement or assessment of accomplishment of the requirement that some percentage of the system be covered by some form of fault management (detection, indication, mitigation).
Fault coverage (testing) is a method of verifying or measuring compliance with the above sort of fault coverage. This latter sense seems to be closer to what is now in the lead section.

Third, there are three ways to define "Test coverage":

Test coverage (fault tolerance) is a requirement or assessment of accomplishment of the requirement that some percentage of the system be covered by some form of Built-in self-test fault detection. In that sense, I can see how someone saw some sort of connection between "Fault coverage" and "Test coverage". This page is not now written that way ....
Test coverage (code-based testing) is measurement of code coverage accomplished by testing based on "looking at the code". This is what code coverage ni test coverage kinda reads like, to me.
Test coverage (requirements-based testing) is measurement of coverage of requirements by testing. A Broad Topic Test coverage (computing) article should include requirements coverage. See Talk:Code_coverage#Move?.

IveGoneAway (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a section about your third definition of test coverage at Black-box testing. I also went ahead and removed the section from this article as it is now covered by Black-box testing#Test coverage and Code coverage. – BrandonXLF (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]