Talk:Non-regression testing

Issues with the references

As of today, two of the references don't relate to "NRT". They describe issues opposite to it and they are unclear. They don't explain what the subject is or how it is different. The article seems to be a long case of WP:OR. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some argument on the definition of Non-Regression Testing and Regression Testing in their respective entries. These two should be reconciled or at least called out that different user communities (software developers and Embedded Software developers) that developed two different names for the same process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.97.76 (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

There does? I don't see that. Do you have references to support your statement? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

They both say the goal is to prevent Software regression. So the two types of testing have the same purpose despite names that suggest they are opposites. If they are two different techniques to accomplish the same goal then there must be a comparison that can be referenced. 63.133.192.195 (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

All testing has the same purpose: to discover bugs. The approaches used to discover those bugs differentiate them from each other, not from their common purpose. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Regression vs non-regression testing

The "Regression and non-regression testing" section seems to mischaracterize regression testing. This statement: "the intent of regression testing is to assure that a software bug has been successfully corrected by retesting the modified software" is wrong (see regression testing, the aim of regression testing is to ensure that correcting the bug has not introduced any errors in existing functions, not to test if the bug itself has been fixed). Once you remove that incorrect statement the whole paragraph falls apart and I can't see the difference between NRT and RT. I suspect this article should be removed or simply redirected to regression testing as they are the same thing. Meritw (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure completely if the content of NRT is valid or not(yet to read through it), but RT and NRT are quite separate. RT tests existing functionality and NRT will include new functionality testing and would become part of RT at a later point of time depending on lot of variables. In short say an application exists which has a functionality set of X. An RT group exists to cover X. A new code change occurs on the application to make the functionality as (X+Y). The RT will still test X until it evolves at a later point of time to include Y. But to cover the extra changes based on Y, a NRT has to be conducted which most of the times is a manual process until the RT evolves to cover both X+Y.  A m i t  웃   18:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand your definition and I've updated the first paragraph under "Regression and non-regression testing" to match. It seems to me that NRT can basically be defined as all tests which are not regression tests. Meritw (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Issues with article

This article has no references in literature. It appears to be predicated on the basis of where there is a "X Test Approach or Tactic" then "non-X Test Approach or Tactic" is the technique of doing everything apart from X. That amounts to software testing - not applying technique X is testing, not "non-X testing".

I propose to start removing unreferenced parts of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorkyabroad (talk • contribs) 12:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

If "Non-regression testing" is the same thing as regression testing, then certainly let's merge the articles. A Google search does show at least a few people using that term independently of discussions expressing confusion caused by the Wikipedia articles. For example, this tool is described as "non-regression testing technology" - https://arcadsoftware.com/products/dot-verifier-a-non-regression-testing-nrt-tool/ and they use the "NRT" abbreviation. And this page, I believe from an Indian company, talks about the two as different concepts, though it's still not clear to me how they're different - http://testorigen.com/is-non-regression-testing-exist/. So we probably should maintain a redirect for "Non-regression testing" and briefly discuss what it is on the regression testing page. Faught (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rainald62: is this the discussion that you were referencing when you blanked and redirected the content?

@Faught: is redirecting the solution? Is this another one of those nomenclature issues where some regions refer to it one way while others refer to it in another? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I meant the first section (2012). There, two IP contributors state that non-regression testing is the same as regression testing, which should become obvious if you follow my hint at Google Books. 63.133.192.195 asked for a reference where the purported difference would be addressed, but you (as a frequent maintainer of the article) failed to produce it for six years now. --Rainald62 (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a Google-Books search for "Non-regression testing" or "Non-regression test" (suite) with the restriction to books with preview available. Of the books listed, six do contain "regression" (so there is no need to refer to ominous web pages), all of which use the term in the sense of Regression testing. So a redirect is inevitable. Clearing the page poses no loss, see Hardware in the loop#Automotive systems.

But how comes "Non-regression testing is performed to test that an intentional change has had the desired effect."? It was already stated by the original author of this article, Section Regression and Non-Regression Testing. The only reference in that section, [2] = Efficient Strategies for Integration and Non-regression Testing of OO Systems, uses "non-regression testing" in the usual sense of regression testing and does not use "regression testing" at all, so the purported difference is not backed, quite to the contrary. I take that as a hoax, maybe @Yorkyabroad: too, because of this kind of a redirect. The hoax' performance is mixed: It lasted eight years, it is linked from outside WP, but it is not linked from any other WP article. --Rainald62 (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not really sure what is meant by "hoax" - as stated above, unreferenced sections were removed. The section that remained referred to engine management/control units - which was referenced. As of now, the redirect appears to remove the usage of "non-regression test" for engine management systems. If literature references have been found to other contexts for "non-regression testing", e.g. for software testing, then it would appear appropriate to include those in the page with an appropriate description. Alternatively, remove the redirect and insert a paragraph on the "regression testing" page with it's equivalence to "non-regression testing" and appropriate references. Yorkyabroad (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Note that the reference, [2] = Efficient Strategies for Integration and Non-regression Testing of OO Systems, only uses "regression testing" - not the phrase "non-regression" in the article. Yorkyabroad (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

engine as computer hardware

I understand that modern automobile engines are becoming more complicated, but can we really consider them to be computer hardware. That's how this article was categorized when @Bamyers99: added the Category:Hardware testing. I don't think we're dealing with computer hardware, and since the cat was added without explanation, I'd like to hear why it was added before removing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Feel free to change it to a better category or substitute {{Uncategorized}}. Category:Software testing was deleted from the article so I chose what I thought was appropriate. --Bamyers99 (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)