Testing vs. Checking

The context-driven school’s sharpest distinction (Bach & Bolton): checking is the mechanistic verification of propositions about the product, automatable by definition. Testing is the exploratory, questioning activity of evaluating the product by learning about it, which includes deciding which propositions are even worth checking, and that part doesn’t automate. What gets automated is checking: “There is no such thing as automated testing” (Bach).

The property-list tradition and the context-driven school have argued past each other for a decade: parallel trenches, no direct engagement. This garden concedes the vocabulary instead of fighting it: the suite contains Automated Checks, and prediction is bounded by what those checks were told to look for.

Part of Test Desiderata.

Sources

• James Bach and Michael Bolton, Testing and Checking Refined: the canonical statement of the distinction.
• James Bach, interview (2014): “there is no such thing as automated testing.”
• Context-Driven Testing: the school’s seven principles.