How about "Fault Insertion, More On". In the past I've seen two different attitudes on fault insertion. The first test engineer was diligent at inserting and verifying faults he inserted. It took a while but, and the test lead, has confidence that if there are faults in a UUT, the test sequence will catch them and report them correctly.
Another test engineer, said he didn't have time to insert and verify faults because he had to get his test running. I thought making sure your test would catch faults was part of getting the tests running. Very recently, a fault was put into his testing (I probably shouldn't have pulled the break out box shorting plug) and I noticed it wasn't caught. He just got annoyed that someone was messing with his test.
Another time, his test crashed instead of catching a UUT error. When I say crashed I mean his code had a fatal error and could not continue. He just said "That shouldn't happen". He fixed the UUT so that it didn't cause the error (a broken wire in a cable) and didn't fix the error.
So, which tester do you think was embarrassed at sell off time with quality assurance there, watching, keeping track of problems. So who do you think was the Fault Insertion More On?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment