Talk:White-box testing

message: I'm not so sure I like mixing of this term as it relates to both hardware and software. Maybe we could split this article into two sections? DRogers 19:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mixing of hardware and software

message: I disagree with this sentence: "Often, multiple programmers will write tests based on certain code, so as to gain varying perspectives on possible outcomes." Maybe I just don't understand it. But tests based on code shouldn't really be open for interpretation, and so shouldn't need varying perspectives. DRogers 19:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This sentence

message: Hi, i added a doc which has examples to some white box design techniques. Feel free to add your comments. --Erkan Yilmaz 13:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: doc with examples to design techniques

message: I think this article gets off to a bad start. This sentence "White box testing (a.k.a. clear box testing, glass box testing or structural testing) uses an internal perspective of the system to design test cases based on internal structure." Is not very plesent to read, and it's hard to know what the author means by "the system." It should be more specific. Just changing "the system" to "a system" would help. 122.30.196.205 (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Start

message: test  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.152.81 (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simply Understand 

message: Walter Görlitz readded the copyedit tag without other comment after I completed my edit. I'd like to call this one done, so I hope he will let us know what remaining problems he sees.
:Lfstevens (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly the bullet points. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming you meant "only the bullet points", I'll fix them and detag. Otherwise, don't keep us in suspense. Lfstevens (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Much appreciated. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: Hello, I do not understand why the testplant reference was considered a spam. Wouldn't it be considered plagiarism if I didn't reference them three times in the advantages section? Ash890 (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is http://www.testplant.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/06/BB_vs_WB_Testing-1.pdf. The website, http://www.testplant.com a commercial site. The guideline is :WP:SPAMLINK, which reads: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." :Wikipedia:Spam is more thorough. This company is in the market of selling their product, which is mentioned on the last page: "We would recommend that you try Eggplant as it delivers all of the benefits of black-box testing while overcoming nearly all of the cited limitations." It's unambiguous solicitation and not appropriate for an encyclopaedia article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testplant is spam? 

message: I've reverted  by Walter Görlitz, as it seemed to me that his concerns were mistaken or misplaced. While the previous couple of sources introduced by Ash890 were of dubious reliability, the latest three seemed reliable enough to me - journal published articles that had author names on them, contrary to the edit summary on the revert. While the quality of this article itself may be lacking (the disadvantages and advantages sections may not be best off as bullet points), I think the more egregious problems with sources have been resolved.  — daranz [ t ] 20:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I looked at the first source, which I just tagged as needing verification. Thanks for checking the full edit. I'm not sure if the other two sources are student papers or something else. I didn't look closely at them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about [[WP:RS]] 

message: Dear all,
i think that the idea of white box is so important that a specific article on this concept should be created.
Any ideas why it shouldn't ? Or maybe some suggestions on what it should include ?
All the best,
--Hgfernan (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what this article is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of White box article