tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7598050329177872056.post6030126029071532216..comments2008-12-10T16:19:46.125-05:00Linda Wilkinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00169605697016362254noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7598050329177872056.post-76457953640954380842008-12-10T16:19:00.000-05:002008-12-10T16:19:00.000-05:00Paul, I posted your defense, even though I was growling in a most unattractive way at the time... I suppose (she said reluctantly) that something that fails a "Happy Path" test would be so glaringly, obviously wrong that your point that there would be no argument about fixing it would be true. <BR/><BR/>I feel I must point out, however, that typical users veer from the Happy Path all the time. It's only wishful thinking to assume otherwise...Linda Wilkinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00169605697016362254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7598050329177872056.post-4203696255339834192008-12-10T10:44:00.000-05:002008-12-10T10:44:00.000-05:00I'll offer up one defence of Happy Path Testing: any bugs found using this technique will carry more weight because it's very easy to argue they would be found by a typical user doing typical things. The first comeback on obscure bugs is always "why would anyone do that?" -- well it doesn't apply here.Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02022807203597497097noreply@blogger.com