Talk:Integration testing

message: *Integration testing - definition only, sub stub. Was on Wikipedia:Cleanup for weeks. Onebyone 02:28, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: from VFD:

message: I have a corporate setup with compartmentalized testing platforms. Some non-technical people are questioning why an error discovered in the system testing platform wasn’t discovered in the integration testing platform. I would like to add a statement here that explicitly gives the limitations of integration testing, in that any conditions not stated in the integration tests will not be tested, and that integration tests do not include system-wide (end-to-end) change testing. Perhaps also an example of an integration test, i.e.: ‘Assuming a new property was sent in to the platform, it would completely update to the data warehouse.’ --SRCHFD 17:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: As of 25Nov2008, the Purpose stated is "verify functional, performance and reliability requirements." The Definition section also states "It follows unit testing and precedes system testing." This seems to be in conflict with the Wiki page for System Testing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_testing) which describes types of system testing to include performance and reliability tests. It seems these two types of tests are in both Integrated Testing, and System Testing, and precede themselves. Darius07 17:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose 

message: The different types of integration testing are Big Bang, Top Down, Bottom Up, and Back bone.
What? --Abdull 19:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bingo!" 

message: A type of testing in which software and/or hardware components are combined and tested to confirm that they interact according to their requirements. Integration testing can continue progressively until the entire system has been integrated —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.199.137.109 (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Integration Testing Definition  

message: The article now states that integration testing follows package testing, rather than unit testing. The term 'package testing' is not, as far as i am aware, universally used, so I would prefer that this be changed back.  Package testing is itself a form of integration testing (perhaps equivalent to 'integration testing in the small'), so it would be better to change this definition back, and to differentiate between intra-system/module integration testing (i.e. 'in the small') and inter-module/system integration testing (i.e. 'in the large'). --Michig 16:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Following unit testing or package testing 

message: I think that the “Big Bang” approach cannot be considered a type of Integration Testing since it does not test the “integration process” of the system but rather the system as a whole, which is closer to System Testing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.194.136 (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the "Big Bang" approach be removed? 

message: I'm confused by the uncited reference to Usage Model Testing?  Is this referring to statistical testing using a usage model?  Would a citation be helpful? Spokeninsanskrit (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage Model Testing? 

message: The overall test strategy as part of the Validation & Verification procedure is the following:
Unit Testing
System Testing
Integration Testing
Acceptance Testing
Sometimes Unit and System Testing can be considered the same.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordfaust (talk • contribs) 11:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in software testing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test Strategy