故意添加错误来评估 QA 流程
您如何知道程序中已发现并解决了尽可能多的错误？ 几年前，我读过一份有关调试的文档（我认为这是某种 HOWTO）。除其他外，该文档描述了一种技术，其中编程团队故意将错误添加到代码中并将其传递给质量检查团队。当发现所有故意已知的错误时，质量检查过程就被认为完成了。
不幸的是，我找不到该文档或任何描述此技巧的类似文档。有人可以指点我这样的文件吗？
编辑
为了让 Evgeny 高兴，让我解释一下第一段的最后一句话：
“在发现所有故意的错误之前，QA 过程尚未完成”
How do you know that as many bugs as possiblle have been discovered and solved in a program?
Couple of years ago I have read a document about debugging (I think it was some sort of HOWTO). Among other things, that document described a technique in which the programming team deliberately adds bugs into the code and passes it to the QA team. The QA process is considered completed when all the deliberately known bugs have been discovered.
Unfortunately, I cannot find this document, or any similar one with description of this trick. Can someone please point me to such a document?
EDIT
To make Evgeny happy, let me paraphrase the last sentence of the first paragraph:
"The QA process isn't complete before all the deliberate bugs are found"
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（3）
该技术的一个名称是“故障注入”。关于该主题的一本较旧的书是 “软件故障注入：针对错误接种程序”< /a> 作者：杰弗里·沃斯和加里·麦格劳。
One name for the technique is 'Fault Injection'. One of the older books on the subject is 'Software Fault Injection: Inoculating Programs Against Errors' by Jeffrey Voas and Gary McGraw.
我从未见过这样的文档，但我不会仅仅因为发现了你故意的错误就说 QA 过程是“完整的”。这是确保您的 QA 团队不会太懒的好方法，但您无法真正确保他们进行了足够测试。
根本不可能知道所有错误（或“尽可能多的错误”）都已被发现。您所能做的就是遵循彻底、深思熟虑的测试方法，让自己有一个好的机会。
I've never seen such a document, but I'd be wary of saying the QA process is "complete" just because your deliberate bugs have been found. It's a good way of ensuring that your QA team doesn't get too lazy, but you can't really ensure they did enough testing.
It's fundamentally impossible to know that all bugs (or "as many bugs as possible") have been discovered. All you can do is follow a thorough, well thought-out testing approach to give yourself a good shot at it.
我通常发现有很多错误可供 QA 发现，而不必注入任何故意的错误！我宁愿让我的 QA 团队继续寻找我从未想象过的系统中可能存在的错误。
和 Evgeny 一样，当发现一组已知错误时，我会非常谨慎地宣布 QA 流程完成。我更喜欢使用退出标准，例如：
I usually find that there are plenty of bugs for QA to find, without having to inject any deliberate ones ! I'd much rather have my QA team continue to find bugs that I never even imagined could be in the system.
Like Evgeny, I'd be very wary of calling the QA process complete when a set of known bugs has been found. I prefer to use exit criteria such as: