On 9/4/07, Peter Cooper <peter / peterc.org> wrote:
> On 9/4/07, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale / gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Personally, it just feels right to me to separate the test code from
> > the code under test, most test equipment belongs in the garage instead
> > of the trunk of the car.
>
>
> A lot of diagnostics now takes place in modern cars, however. Tire pressure
> checks, engine wear, oil, etc. Sure, you'd only work and make changes to the
> car in the garage, but a lot of the "testing" is a hidden ongoing day to day
> process.

For the most part, that's instrumentation, not testing.

In the case where sensor information is used to affect the operation
of the vehicle, such as
engine managment, abs, or traction control, it's no more testing
equipment than carburettors, brakes, and master cylinders.  Yes, data
gets logged, but that's not testing, any more than a server log file
is.

> And if you get onto, say, Formula 1 cars.. some "repairs" can even take
> place on the road and the telemetry provides almost as much info to the
> engineers while the car is running out on the track as they can get in the
> garage. I've always wondered if/how to make software as easy to diagnose
> with real-time telemetry and the ability to make changes to a running
> program's parameters..

Yes, but most the testing equipment is not in the car, the engineers
in the pits have laptops, and the heavy stuff is in places like Woking
or Maranello, connected through the 'internets.'

-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/