Closed JagdeepSinghNUS closed 4 days ago
Good question @JagdeepSinghNUS Let's wait to see what others have any thoughts on a possible explanation..
I think it depends on the context, but 'E' and 'F' are not really adjacent in any sense other than ascii code (and I don't think it's common to use the ascii code form in a for-loop for example), so I couldn't consider them boundaries.
In my opinion, there is no clear boundaries specified by the equivalence partition for this case (as well as the one for prime numbers and "A", "D", "X"). I think for one to do boundary value analysis, the equivalence partition needs to have a continuous range of values for us to properly define a boundary.
Perhaps testing "E", "F" and "G" falls under a different name of testing.
Nice, I now have a better understanding of this, thanks :)
Good answer @Incogdino
@JagdeepSinghNUS Strictly speaking, we can't be 100% sure without further contextual info but it is unlikely E
and G
are adjacent to F in a way that the programmer makes an 'off by one' mistake to accept them instead of F (which is the type of errors boundary values catch).
f
is certainly a good test case, but we can't call it a boundary value.
Just to check, for the forth example ["F"], why can't "E" or "G" or perhaps "f" be considered a specific boundary to test?