Talk:Acceptance testing

message: Please review and comment or edit.
Rsutherland 07:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Rsutherland: All of these terms have been used in lieue of "acceptance test' at one time or other.  Any test the sponsor is willing to sign off on is, by definition, an "acceptance test." If you want to add or extend the definition of any of these terms on this or another page, please do so.  I see no reason to nuke the definition.  You object precisely to— what? In practice, there are no clean definitions of anything— would it were not so! ⇒  normxxx|  talk  ⇒  email 05:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Reality Is

message: I think the two articles are covering the same subject matter.  --Chris Pickett 06:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UATs are a different concept from Acceptance tests. --Walter Görlitz 03:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, UAT, OAT, and RAT each has a distinct purpose, distinct agents, and distinct methodology, but they do overlap.  That is, "UAT", "OAT", and "RAT" are all types of "acceptance testing".  The merge proposal merely suggests to move the meager contents of the User acceptance testing article into a ==User acceptance testing== section of the Acceptance testing article and then to refactor the result.  Rod (A. Smith) 21:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from User Acceptance Test

message: Release Acceptance -- ( a sub process of Release Management) -- The Activity responsible for testing a Release, and its implementation and Back-out Plans, to ensure they meet the agreed Business and IT Operations Requirements. --Liftoph 22:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So go ahead and edit the main page to document this.  I think the best name for the article is actually Acceptance testing, since it is in line with unit testing, integration testing, and system testing.  (Unit testing is just a redirect to unit test at the moment.) --Chris Pickett 23:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ITIL]] Uses the term Release Acceptance 

message: 426 Reliability. (Crosslisted with Stat) Irr.; 3 cr (N-A). Engineering reliability, analysis of failure data, esti-mates of hazard rates and failure distributions for the reliability of components and/or systems, acceptance sampling plans for quality control. P: Stat 224 or cons inst. Reference: http://www.wisc.edu/pubs/ug/07engineering/mecheng.html --Liftoph 00:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but it's still black box testing; maybe the black box testing page needs fixing.  Also, can you put the citation in the article?  --Chris Pickett 00:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mechanical, Chemical Engineering etc. may have product lots/batches that need acceptance testing 

message: what is the future scope for acceptance testing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.95.167.91 (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what you mean by "future scope". Do you mean, "If I were to try to find employment as a specialist in writing acceptance tests, how employable would I be" or do you mean something else? --Walter Görlitz 04:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  future scope 

message: I was trying to figure out what the differences between a "unit test" and a "functional test" (in the context of software engineering) were and was redirected here, to Acceptance Testing. It appears that the answer is that a unit test is for testing an object sans environment, while a functional test tests the object within its environment. Within the context of software engineering at least, it would appear that "functional tests" should not be equated with "acceptance testing" as one in the same. Inanutshellus 21:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  In short, "Acceptance/Unit testing" falls into "software" testing and "Functional" test that is being asked to be merged into this article refers to "hardware" testing.  Let's see if we can convince the "Functional test" article be moved into "Board functional test" article. |--JC--| 01:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There is clearly a lot of confusion here.  Software testing starts with Unit Tests, moves on to Integration Testing (Small & Large), Functional Testing, Non-Functional Testing (Including Load/Performance and Security), User Acceptance Testing and Operational Acceptance Testing.  On implementation there is often also a release test to verify the implementation in live has succeeded, otherwise the software implemented will be 'rolled back'. (ChrisKeiron (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're so right. There is a lot of confusion. Software testing doesn't start with unit tests, it starts with requirement analysis. The rest of what you said is correct for one possible approach to development, but not all. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Functional tests 

message: Any one help me to create test senorios,Test cases for UAT in DataWare House testing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.99.195.2 (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many software testing consultants and discussion groups that could help you with this task. Wikipedia is not the correct forum for this. --Walter Görlitz 04:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DataWare House Testing 

message: This stub seems a bit weak to me. I'm not in the industry, but I doubt that, as purported by the article, the consumer either knows or cares about this testing process. It may be important from the marketing prospective of the company, but the gist here seems to be that the test is used and valued by the end user in general. Is this true? Maybe I'm only thinking about mass market products and this is related to unique, or custom ordered production. If so, I think that detail should be included in the description. --Bookandcoffee 21:04, 16 January 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above comments. There's nothing in the article to explain that "User Acceptance Testing" is a process in the Software Development Lifecycle. The "User" is an overloaded term which often means the developer's paying customer, usually a different business unit or company. This should not be confused with the "end-user", the poor sap who has no control over the process other than to return the product or cancel the service if it doesn't live up to expectations. --66.248.222.242 19:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with the description of the testers. SMEs (Subject Matter Experts) are useful in gathering design requirements, but actual testing is done by a testing group which usually has no special knowledge of the inner-workings of the product or system other than to know what an average end-user should experience. If they were SMEs, they wouldn't be testers. (I suppose you can be a testing SME, an expert in the process of testing, but I doubt that's a useful distinction for this article.) --66.248.222.242 19:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of SDLC for scratch software in enterprises, no, you're reading too much into the term SME. Yes, SMEs are indeed testers. SME is a generic term for anyone who knows something about a particular area. A system SME would know about the system and not necessarily about the inner workings or the plumbing. --Webagogue 06:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No. Show stopper bugs are bugs that are show stoppers and have nothing to do (at least directly) with resources. --Webagogue 06:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that instead of disagreeing, that you edit the article directly, but I suggest that you get an account to do so. --Walter Görlitz 03:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User acceptance testing 

message: Reviewing this from a software test perspective, the information appears inaccurate & misleading. It seems to confuse test approaches (eg Black / white box) and types of tests (eg functional tests) with test phases - eg unit, system, user acceptance and operational acceptance which can all employ functional tests.  I would rewrite but was unsure whether I should as the article refers to "Engineering disciplines".
Is it acceptable for me to rewrite from the software test perspective?  ChrisKeiron (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite? 

message: I have removed a lot of the "citation needed" tags from the first paragraph and replaced them with a single tag after the sentence as I felt the repeated superscript links were making the text difficult to read, and that my solution makes the same point adequately. 62.25.109.195 (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed... Citation Needed... Citation Needed 

message: Much of this article relates to systems and software topics.  Acceptance testing is a much broader subject and involves many other branches of engineering.  Either this article should be given a restrictive title or it should be opened up to other aspects of acceptance testing.  Rlsheehan (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Open it up to other aspects of acceptance testing much like the smoke testing article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of article? 

message: Acceptance Trials of Computer Systems for Government Use (1961) --89.25.210.104 (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Related:Problems in Acceptance Testing of Digital Computers (1954) MarMi wiki (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acceptance Trials of Computer Systems for Government Use