[SystemSafety] CbyC and unit testing

[Peter Bernard Ladkin]

On 2020-07-03 16:20 , Olwen Morgan wrote:
> 
> 1. As I understand it, PBL's position is, in the symbolism of (classical) modal logic:

Traditionally, modal logics are known as non-classical logics. So when you speak of "classical"
modal logic people may well wonder what you mean. Besides, there are many of them. The correct term
is "the language of propositional modal logic".

> (Use-CbyC -> ¬[]Perform-UT). That is, if you use CbyC development methods it is not necessary to do unit testing.

Nope.

My position is, as I said
>  I said (Use-CbyC -> <>Avoid-unit-tests).

Namely, if you are using CbyC it is possible that you can avoid unit tests.

>     My position is: ¬[](Use-CbyC -> ¬[]Perform-UT). That is to say I do not think it necessarily
> the case that use of CbyC renders UT unnecessary.

Your statement is logically equivalent to <>(Use-CbyC & []Perform-UT) which is that it is possible
that you use CbyC and you have to perform full unit testing.

Those two statements aren't inconsistent with each other.

PBL

Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Bielefeld, Germany
Styelfy Bleibgsnd
Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319  www.rvs-bi.de





-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/pipermail/systemsafety/attachments/20200703/bb278f5c/attachment.sig>