Quote:
Originally Posted by Froofy-D  What's wrong with them? Seems like all of that stuff should be verified. |
It's lacking a tremendous amount of verification. For example, theres nothing power management (it shouldn't kick in while game is up). Theres no testing like screen savers kicking in (those shouldn't either though they should if a game can be minimized). If user selects a GL screensaver, and is running a game and has it minimized, does the GL screensaver affect graphics of game? No processor affinity checks to see how that would affect the game (remember how EQ used to run ultra fast if you changed it?). Aspect ratios and shit are tested, but no refresh rates are tested.
There isn't a single "negative testing" test case.
Basically, what it looks like is a 2-3 hour attended time "test to pass" smoke test to be run by low paid techs in China or India.
When I write test cases for a piece of software, writing the "stuff that should be verified" is about 10% of the suite at most. The expectation from the three companies I've written test plans for is that you write your test cases with a "test to fail" scenario and not a "test to pass". You also are expected to write in a lot of negative testing - ya know, try to break it, etc.
