Chapter 03

Where We Are

What we've learned so far:

• Exhaustive testing is impossible (32 billion years!)
• We need smart strategies to test efficiently
• Clean test code principles (AAA pattern, descriptive names)

Today's question:

If we can't test everything, how do we choose what to test?

The Core Problem

def reciprocal(x: float) -> float:
    """Returns 1/x"""
    if x == 0:
        raise ZeroDivisionError("Cannot divide by zero")
    return 1.0 / x

Questions:

• How many possible inputs? Infinite! (all floats)
• How many tests can we write? Finite (maybe 5-10)
• How do we choose which 5-10 inputs to test?

The Answer: Equivalence Classes

Key Insight:
Not all inputs are equally interesting. Many inputs produce similar behavior.

Definition (Accessible):
An equivalence class is a group of inputs that:

• Produce similar output behavior
• Test the same code path
• Have the same mathematical properties

Strategy:
Test one representative from each equivalence class instead of all possible inputs!

Key Properties

1. Disjoint (no overlap)
Each input belongs to exactly one equivalence class

2. Complete (cover everything)
Every possible input belongs to some equivalence class

3. Representative testing
Testing one value from a class is enough to test the whole class

Result: Testing 3 representatives instead of ∞ inputs!

Mathematical Foundation (Optional Deep Dive)

An equivalence relation ~ on a set X satisfies:

1. Reflexive: x ~ x (every element is equivalent to itself)
2. Symmetric: If x ~ y, then y ~ x
3. Transitive: If x ~ y and y ~ z, then x ~ z

Example: For reciprocal(x):

• Define: x ~ y if sign(x) = sign(y)
• This creates 3 equivalence classes: positive, negative, zero

Don't worry if this feels abstract - we'll see concrete examples next!

Example 1: reciprocal(x) - The Simplest Case

Interactive Question:

Looking at this code, how many distinct behaviors do you see?

Think about:

• What happens when x > 0?
• What happens when x < 0?
• What happens when x == 0?

reciprocal(x): Three Equivalence Classes

Key insight: All positive numbers behave the same (just different magnitudes)!

reciprocal(x): Test Code

def test_reciprocal_positive():
    """Test with positive number (representative: 5.0)"""
    assert reciprocal(5.0) == 0.2

def test_reciprocal_negative():
    """Test with negative number (representative: -5.0)"""
    assert reciprocal(-5.0) == -0.2

def test_reciprocal_zero():
    """Test with zero (representative: 0.0)"""
    with pytest.raises(ZeroDivisionError):
        reciprocal(0.0)

Result: 3 tests instead of ∞ tests!

Common Mistake: Over-Testing

Bad Approach (wasteful):

def test_reciprocal_1(): assert reciprocal(1.0) == 1.0
def test_reciprocal_2(): assert reciprocal(2.0) == 0.5
def test_reciprocal_5(): assert reciprocal(5.0) == 0.2
def test_reciprocal_10(): assert reciprocal(10.0) == 0.1
def test_reciprocal_100(): assert reciprocal(100.0) == 0.01
# All test the SAME equivalence class (positive numbers)!

Good Approach (efficient):

def test_reciprocal_positive():
    assert reciprocal(5.0) == 0.2  # One representative is enough!

Example 2: Multiple Parameters

def reciprocal_sum(x: float, y: float, z: float) -> float:
    """Returns 1 / (x + y + z)"""
    total = x + y + z
    if abs(total) < 1e-10:
        raise ZeroDivisionError("Sum is too close to zero")
    return 1.0 / total

Interactive Question:

How many equivalence classes do you think this has?

• 3 parameters, each can be +/−/0, so... 3³ = 27 classes?

The Surprise: Still Only 3 Classes!

Key insight: The sum is what matters, not individual parameters!

Why? Because reciprocal_sum(1,2,3) and reciprocal_sum(2,1,3) produce the same behavior (same sum).

Common Mistake: Testing All Sign Combinations

Bad Approach (wasteful - 8 tests):

test_all_positive()      # (+, +, +)
test_all_negative()      # (−, −, −)
test_pos_pos_neg()       # (+, +, −)
test_pos_neg_pos()       # (+, −, +)
test_neg_pos_pos()       # (−, +, +)
test_pos_neg_neg()       # (+, −, −)
test_neg_pos_neg()       # (−, +, −)
test_neg_neg_pos()       # (−, −, +)

Problem: These all test the same 3 behaviors (positive/negative/zero sum)!

Good Approach: Test Sum Categories

Good Approach (efficient - 3 tests):

def test_positive_sum():
    """Representative: (1, 2, 3) → sum = 6"""
    assert reciprocal_sum(1.0, 2.0, 3.0) == pytest.approx(0.167, abs=0.01)

def test_negative_sum():
    """Representative: (−1, −2, −3) → sum = −6"""
    assert reciprocal_sum(-1.0, -2.0, -3.0) == pytest.approx(-0.167, abs=0.01)

def test_zero_sum():
    """Representative: (1, −0.5, −0.5) → sum ≈ 0"""
    with pytest.raises(ZeroDivisionError):
        reciprocal_sum(1.0, -0.5, -0.5)

Key Principle: Output Categories Determine Input Classes

Wrong thinking:
"I have 3 parameters → I need 3³ = 27 tests"

Correct thinking:
"What are the distinct output behaviors?" → 3 behaviors → 3 tests

General principle:

1. Look at the code (white-box testing)
2. Identify what determines the output
3. Group inputs by similar behavior
4. Choose one representative per group

Is the Partition Unique?

Question: Is there only ONE correct way to partition inputs?

Answer: No! You choose based on your goals.

Example for reciprocal(x):

Choosing Granularity (continued)

Option 3: Very Fine (5 classes)

• Large positive (x > 1) → x = 10.0
• Small positive (0 < x ≤ 1) → x = 0.1
• Small negative (-1 ≤ x < 0) → x = -0.1
• Large negative (x < -1) → x = -10.0
• Zero (x == 0) → x = 0.0

Trade-offs: Coarse vs. Fine Partitions

Guidelines:

• Coarse: Quick smoke tests, low-risk functions
• Fine: Standard choice for most functions
• Very Fine: Security-critical, financial calculations, known bug-prone areas

Guidelines for Choosing Granularity

Consider these factors:

1. Code paths: How many distinct branches in the implementation?
2. Mathematical properties: Sign changes? Special values (0, 1, −1)?
3. Domain significance: Are there natural categories? (e.g., angles: 0°, 90°, 180°)
4. Bug risk: Has this area been buggy before?
5. Cost of failure: What happens if it breaks? (money lost? safety risk?)

Pragmatic approach: Start with 3-5 classes, add more if bugs are found.

White-Box vs. Black-Box Testing

Black-Box Testing:

• You don't see the implementation
• Partition based on specification and domain knowledge
• Example: "reciprocal should work for positive and negative numbers"

White-Box Testing:

• You can see the implementation
• Partition based on code structure and logic
• Example: "I see an if x == 0 check, so zero is a separate class"

Best practice: Combine both!

Example 3: calculate_ray_slope(angle_degrees)

def calculate_ray_slope(angle_degrees: float) -> float | None:
    """Calculate ray slope from angle. Returns None for vertical rays."""
    angle_rad = -np.deg2rad(angle_degrees)

    # Vertical ray detection (cos ≈ 0)
    if np.abs(np.cos(angle_rad)) < 1e-10:
        return None

    slope = np.tan(angle_rad)
    return slope

How many equivalence classes? 3 like before, or different?

calculate_ray_slope: Four Equivalence Classes!

Why 4 instead of 3? Zero has two meanings here:

• Horizontal ray (angle = 0°) → slope is 0
• Vertical ray (cos = 0) → no slope (returns None)

calculate_ray_slope: Test Code

def test_downward_ray():
    """Downward ray (−45°) → positive slope"""
    assert calculate_ray_slope(-45.0) == pytest.approx(1.0, abs=0.01)

def test_horizontal_ray():
    """Horizontal ray (0°) → zero slope"""
    assert calculate_ray_slope(0.0) == pytest.approx(0.0, abs=0.01)

def test_upward_ray():
    """Upward ray (45°) → negative slope"""
    assert calculate_ray_slope(45.0) == pytest.approx(-1.0, abs=0.01)

def test_vertical_ray():
    """Vertical ray (90°) → None (no slope)"""
    assert calculate_ray_slope(90.0) is None

Meta-Insight: Same Pattern, Different Granularity

Key takeaway:

• Same pattern (positive/negative/special)
• Different granularity based on context
• You decide how fine to partition based on requirements

Why Zero is Special Here

For reciprocal(x):

• x = 0 → error (can't divide by zero)
• Clear mathematical boundary

For calculate_ray_slope(angle):

• angle = 0° → valid result (horizontal ray, slope = 0)
• cos(angle) ≈ 0 (i.e., angle ≈ ±90°) → special case (vertical ray, no slope)

General principle:
Zero (or any special value) is a separate class when it triggers different behavior (error, edge case, special logic).

Arrays: A New Dimension of Complexity

So far: Simple numeric inputs (floats, ints)

Now: Arrays introduce two dimensions of equivalence:

1. Structural equivalence classes:

   • How many elements?
   • Empty vs. non-empty?

2. Value-based equivalence classes:

   • What values do elements have?
   • Positive? Negative? Mixed?

Result: Complexity multiplies!

Example 4: array_sum(arr)

def array_sum(arr: list[float]) -> float:
    """Returns sum of array elements"""
    return sum(arr)

Structural classes (by length):

• Empty: []
• Single element: [5.0]
• Two elements: [1.0, 2.0]
• Many elements: [1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0]

array_sum: Value-Based Classes

Value classes (by content):

• All positive: [1.0, 2.0, 3.0]
• All negative: [−1.0, −2.0, −3.0]
• Mixed signs: [1.0, −2.0, 3.0]
• Contains zeros: [1.0, 0.0, 2.0]
• All zeros: [0.0, 0.0]

Note: These can be combined with structural classes!

Combined Complexity: 4 × 5 = 20 Tests?

Structural (4) × Value (5) = 20 potential tests

	Positive	Negative	Mixed	With 0s	All 0s
Empty	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Single			N/A
Two
Many

Do we need all 20? Not necessarily! Strategic sampling is key.

Strategic Testing for array_sum

Practical approach (8-10 tests):

# Structural coverage
test_empty_array()              # []
test_single_element()           # [5.0]
test_many_elements()            # [1, 2, 3, 4]

# Value coverage (with "many" structure)
test_all_positive()             # [1, 2, 3]
test_all_negative()             # [−1, −2, −3]
test_mixed_signs()              # [1, −2, 3]
test_contains_zeros()           # [1, 0, 2]

# Edge cases
test_all_zeros()                # [0, 0, 0]

Key: Cover each dimension with 2-3 representatives, plus edge cases.

Common Mistake: Focusing on Wrong Dimension

Bad Approach:

test_three_elements()    # [1, 2, 3]
test_four_elements()     # [1, 2, 3, 4]
test_five_elements()     # [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
test_six_elements()      # [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
# All test "many positive elements" - SAME equivalence class!

Good Approach:

test_many_positive()     # [1, 2, 3, 4]     (many + positive)
test_many_negative()     # [−1, −2, −3, −4] (many + negative)
test_many_mixed()        # [1, −2, 3, −4]   (many + mixed)
# Different VALUE classes with SAME structure

Good News: Discrete Functions Are Simpler!

All examples so far had continuous outputs:

• reciprocal(x) → ℝ (infinite real numbers)
• calculate_ray_slope(angle) → ℝ ∪ {None}

We had to choose how to partition outputs (3 categories? 4? 5?)

But what about functions with discrete/finite outputs?

• Letter grades: {"A", "B", "C", "D", "F"}
• Boolean results: {True, False}
• Status codes: {200, 404, 500}

The simplification: Output categories are pre-defined!

Continuous vs. Discrete Functions

Key insight shift:

• Continuous: Design problem (how to partition?)
• Discrete: Analysis task (which inputs produce each output?)

Example 1: Letter Grades

def calculate_grade(score: int) -> str:
    """Calculate letter grade (A-F)."""
    if score < 0 or score > 100:
        raise ValueError("Score must be between 0 and 100")

    if score >= 90:   return "A"
    elif score >= 80: return "B"
    elif score >= 70: return "C"
    elif score >= 60: return "D"
    else:             return "F"

How many equivalence classes for score?

Grade Function: 6 Equivalence Classes

Why 6? 5 valid outputs + 1 error = 6 distinct behaviors

Grade Function: Test Code

def test_calculate_grade_A():
    """Equivalence class: Grade A (90-100)"""
    assert calculate_grade(95) == "A"
    assert calculate_grade(90) == "A"   # Boundary
    assert calculate_grade(100) == "A"  # Boundary

def test_calculate_grade_B():
    """Equivalence class: Grade B (80-89)"""
    assert calculate_grade(85) == "B"
    assert calculate_grade(80) == "B"   # Boundary
    assert calculate_grade(89) == "B"   # Boundary

# ... tests for C, D, F, Invalid ...

Pattern: One test per class + boundary values

Example 2: Password Validation

def validate_password(password: str) -> tuple[bool, str]:
    """Validate password strength."""
    if not isinstance(password, str):
        return (False, "Password must be a string")
    if len(password) < 8:
        return (False, "Password too short")
    if len(password) > 20:
        return (False, "Password too long")
    if not any(c.isupper() for c in password):
        return (False, "Must contain uppercase letter")
    # ... more checks ...
    return (True, "Password is valid")

How many equivalence classes?

Password Validation: Basic Checks

4 classes so far... what about character requirements?

Password Validation: Content Requirements

Total: 1 valid + 7 error paths = 8 equivalence classes!

Key insight: Each validation check = one equivalence class!

Password Validation: Order Matters!

Early return pattern:

if len(password) < 8:
    return (False, "Password too short")  # First check

if not any(c.isupper() for c in password):
    return (False, "Must contain uppercase")  # Later check

What about "abc" (too short AND missing uppercase)?

• Belongs to "too short" class (first failing check wins!)

Testing strategy:

• One test per validation path
• Representatives trigger exactly one specific error

Example 3: Shipping Cost

def calculate_shipping_cost(weight: float, distance: float,
                           express: bool = False) -> float:
    # Validation omitted

    # Weight categories
    if weight <= 5:       base = 5.0
    elif weight <= 20:    base = 10.0
    else:                 base = 20.0

    # Distance multiplier
    if distance <= 100:   mult = 1.0
    elif distance <= 500: mult = 1.5
    else:                 mult = 2.0

    return base * mult * (1.5 if express else 1.0)

Shipping Cost: Three Dimensions

Shipping Cost: Combinatorial Challenge

Total combinations:

Plus 2 error classes (invalid weight, invalid distance)

Total: 20 equivalence classes!

Do we need to test all 18? Not necessarily!

Strategic Testing: Dimension Coverage

# Weight dimension (fix distance=50, express=False)
test_light_weight()    # 2.5 kg → €5
test_medium_weight()   # 10 kg → €10
test_heavy_weight()    # 30 kg → €20

# Distance dimension (fix weight=2.5, express=False)
test_local_distance()    # 50 km → €5 × 1.0
test_regional_distance() # 250 km → €5 × 1.5
test_long_distance()     # 1000 km → €5 × 2.0

# Express dimension (fix weight=2.5, distance=50)
test_standard_shipping() # €5 × 1.0
test_express_shipping()  # €5 × 1.5

# Boundary tests + error tests

Result: ~10 strategic tests instead of 18!

Key Insights: Discrete vs. Continuous

When discrete is EASIER:
Output categories are obvious (just list return values!)
No granularity debates (function signature defines classes)
Complete coverage achievable (6 grades? Write 6 tests!)

When discrete is HARDER:
Many possible outputs (8 validation errors = 8 tests minimum)
Combinatorial explosion (3 × 3 × 2 = 18 classes)
Hierarchical validation (order matters - early returns)
Boundary values still critical (89 vs 90 can hide bugs)

Takeaway: Discrete simplifies output partitioning, not input analysis!

Practical Guidelines

Use discrete analysis when:

• Finite return values | Explicit validation
• Threshold-based logic | Continuous → Discrete mapping

Use continuous analysis when:

• Math computations on ℝ | Truly continuous output
• Granularity must be chosen

Use hybrid analysis when:

• Continuous inputs → discrete outcomes
• Geometry/physics | Calculations + conditional logic

Connection: find_intersection() Is Hybrid!

Looks continuous:

• Inputs: floats (angle, position, road points)
• Output: tuple[float, float] | None (coordinates)

But outcomes are discrete:

1. No intersection → None
2. Ray intersects ascending segment
3. Ray intersects descending segment
4. Ray intersects horizontal segment
5. Ray intersects at vertex (edge case)

Testing Strategy for Hybrid Functions

Key insight: Even though inputs are continuous (floats), the outcomes are discrete!

Testing strategy:

Identify discrete outcome categories, then pick representative inputs for each!

This is exactly what we did with calculate_shipping_cost!

Pattern:

• Continuous inputs → Discrete outcomes → Test one representative per outcome

The Real Challenge: find_intersection()

From your Road Profile Viewer project:

def find_intersection(
    x_road: np.ndarray,      # Road profile arrays
    y_road: np.ndarray,
    angle_degrees: float,    # Ray direction
    camera_x: float = 0,     # Camera position
    camera_y: float = 1.5
) -> tuple[float, float] | None:
    # ... 70 lines of geometric logic ...

Think about it: How would you test this?

Deep Dive Available

Important: This example is so complex that we've created a separate detailed walkthrough with 22 visual illustrations!

See the "Deep Dive - Testing find_intersection()" slide deck for the complete analysis.

Full details:

Lecture notes on find_intersection()

How Many Tests Needed?

Interactive Poll:

How many tests do you think we need for find_intersection()?

A) 5-10 tests

B) 20-30 tests

C) 50-100 tests

D) More than 100 tests

Discuss with your neighbor! (30 seconds)

Complexity Dimension 1: Array Structure

x_road and y_road arrays:

1. Empty (len = 0) → error handling
2. Single point (len = 1) → degenerate case
3. Two points (len = 2) → one segment, minimal valid
4. Three points (len = 3) → two segments
5. Many points (len > 3) → multiple segments, typical case

Complexity Dimension 2: Angle Classes

angle_degrees:

1. Downward ray (−90° < angle < 0°)
2. Horizontal ray (angle = 0°)
3. Upward ray (0° < angle < 90°)
4. Vertical ray (angle = ±90°) → no slope, special handling
5. Out of range (|angle| > 90°) → invalid input

Complexity Dimension 3: Camera Position

camera_x and camera_y:

Why these matter:

• Position affects which segments are intersectable
• Edge positions test boundary logic

Complexity Dimension 4: Outcome-Based Classes

Based on what the function returns:

1. Intersection found → (x, y)
2. No intersection (ray misses road) → None
3. Multiple possible intersections (which to choose?)
4. Ray parallel to segment (edge case) → None

Why these matter:

• Each outcome exercises different code paths
• Edge cases reveal bugs

Complexity Dimension 5: Road Shape

Geometric properties:

1. Flat road (all y values same)
2. Monotonic ascending/descending
3. Has peaks and valleys

Why these matter:

• Flat road simplifies geometry
• Peaks/valleys increase intersection complexity
• Affects which ray angles find intersections

Five Dimensions of Complexity

For find_intersection(), we identified:

1. Array structure: 5 classes
2. Angle: 5 classes
3. Camera position: 6 classes
4. Outcome: 4 classes
5. Road shape: 3 classes (simplified)

Let's do the math...

The Math: Combinatorial Explosion!

(We simplified road shape to avoid going over 1000!)

Reality check: Can you write and maintain 600 tests?

Spoiler: No! That's where human insight comes in...

AI Limitations: What LLMs Miss

You might think: "Just ask ChatGPT/Claude to generate all 600 tests!"

Problems with AI-generated tests:

1. No geometric intuition: Can't visualize ray-road intersections
2. No domain knowledge: Doesn't understand camera-road relationships
3. Pattern repetition: Generates similar tests with different numbers
4. Misses edge cases: No awareness of parallel rays, degenerate geometry
5. No prioritization: Treats all combinations equally (doesn't know what's important)

Bottom line: LLMs can help, but can't replace human insight!

What Humans See (That AI Doesn't)

Human insight:

• "Downward ray from above-road camera will always miss road" → skip those combinations
• "Camera far right + upward ray → intersection impossible" → skip
• "Two-point road + vertical ray → only works if ray passes through points" → rare edge case
• "Flat road makes angle less important" → reduce angle testing

Result: Humans can prune 600 → 20-30 strategic tests based on domain knowledge.

This is your value as an engineer!

Practical Reduction Strategy: 600 → 30 Tests

Strategy: Cover each dimension with 2-3 representatives

1. Array structure (5 classes) → test 3: empty, two-point, many-point
2. Angle (5 classes) → test 3: downward, horizontal, upward
3. Camera position (6 classes) → test 2: middle, edge
4. Outcome (4 classes) → ensure all 4 appear in test suite
5. Road shape (3 classes) → test 2: flat, varied

The Math: 600 → 30 Tests

Math: 3 + 3 + 2 + 4 + 2 = 14 base tests

Plus edge cases: Vertical ray, parallel segment, out-of-range → ~10 more

Total: ~25-30 tests

Want to see the actual tests? Check out the "Deep Dive - Testing find_intersection()" slide deck for all 22 tests with visual diagrams!

Example Test Class Structure (High Level)

class TestFindIntersection:
    # Structural dimension
    def test_empty_arrays(self): ...
    def test_two_point_road(self): ...
    def test_many_point_road(self): ...

    # Angle dimension
    def test_downward_ray(self): ...
    def test_horizontal_ray(self): ...
    def test_upward_ray(self): ...
    def test_vertical_ray(self): ...  # Edge case

    # Outcome dimension
    def test_intersection_found(self): ...
    def test_no_intersection(self): ...
    def test_ray_parallel_to_segment(self): ...

Example Test Class Structure (Combinations)

class TestFindIntersection:
    # ... (previous tests)

    # Smart combinations (domain-driven)
    def test_camera_on_road_horizontal_ray(self): ...
    def test_camera_above_road_downward_ray_hits(self): ...
    def test_camera_below_road_upward_ray_hits(self): ...
    def test_camera_far_right_upward_ray_misses(self): ...
    def test_flat_road_any_angle(self): ...
    def test_peaked_road_multiple_intersections(self): ...

    # Edge cases
    def test_ray_through_road_endpoint(self): ...
    def test_angle_out_of_range(self): ...

Collaborative Testing: Human + LLM

Human: Identify classes, choose granularity, prioritize risks, review

LLM: Generate boilerplate, create test data, write assertions, suggest edges

Workflow: You design → LLM implements → You review!

How to Use LLMs Effectively for Testing

Good prompts:

• "Generate a test for find_intersection with a two-point flat road and horizontal ray"
• "Write a test that expects None when the ray misses the road"

Bad prompts:

• "Generate all possible tests for find_intersection" → produces low-quality noise
• "Test this function" → vague, no context

Key: Be specific about equivalence classes and expected behavior!

Discussion: Real-World Trade-offs

Scenario: You're testing find_intersection() for a self-driving car.

Questions for discussion:

1. Would you test all 600 combinations? Why or why not?
2. How would your answer change if:
   • It's a video game (not safety-critical)?
   • It's medical imaging software (lives at stake)?
   • You have 2 days vs. 2 weeks for testing?
3. Which combinations are highest risk?

Think-pair-share: Discuss with your neighbor! (2 minutes)

Key Takeaways

1. Equivalence classes reduce infinite inputs to finite tests

• Group inputs by similar behavior, test one per class

2. Output categories determine input classes

• Look at what the function does, not what it takes
• reciprocal_sum(x,y,z): 3 output behaviors → 3 classes

3. Granularity is a design choice

• Simple/low-risk: 2-3 classes | Complex/high-risk: 5-10 classes
• Consider: code paths, domain, bug risk, failure cost

4. White-box testing reveals hidden equivalence classes

• Looking at code shows what actually determines behavior
• Example: reciprocal_sum code reveals sum is what matters

5. Real-world functions have combinatorial complexity

• find_intersection: 5 dimensions × many classes = 600 tests
• Reduce via domain knowledge: 600 → 25-30 strategic tests

6. Human insight is irreplaceable

• LLMs can't visualize geometry, understand domain, or prioritize
• You design equivalence classes, LLM helps implement tests

The Big Picture

Testing Pyramid (Reminder):

         /   \
        / E2E \        10% - End-to-End (full system)
       /_______\
      /         \
     /Integration\     20% - Integration (modules together)
    /_____________\
   /               \
  /   Unit Tests    \  70% - Unit Tests (individual functions)
 /___________________\

Today's focus: How to choose which unit tests to write efficiently!

Next topic: Boundary value analysis (finding bugs at edges)

Preview: Boundary Value Analysis (Coming Next)

Equivalence class testing is powerful, but it's not enough!

Problem: Bugs often hide at boundaries between classes.

Example for reciprocal(x):

• We tested: x = 5.0, x = -5.0, x = 0.0
• But what about: x = 0.0000001? (very close to zero)
• Or: x = 1e308? (very large, near float max)

Boundary value analysis says: Test at the edges of equivalence classes!

Next lecture: How to find and test boundaries systematically.

Hands-On Practice

Exercise: Choose equivalence classes for this function:

def classify_temperature(temp_celsius: float) -> str:
    """Classify temperature for weather app"""
    if temp_celsius < 0:
        return "freezing"
    elif temp_celsius < 10:
        return "cold"
    elif temp_celsius < 20:
        return "mild"
    elif temp_celsius < 30:
        return "warm"
    else:
        return "hot"

Take 2 minutes: Work individually or with a partner

Practice Questions

For classify_temperature(temp_celsius):

1. How many equivalence classes?

2. What are they?

3. What representative values would you choose?

Bonus: What boundary values should you test?

Full lecture: Chapter 03 (Testing Basics) - Testing Fundamentals

Summary: The Pattern

For any function, ask:

1. What are the distinct output behaviors? (outcomes, return types, errors)
2. What inputs produce each behavior? (group by similarity)
3. How fine should I partition? (based on risk, complexity, resources)
4. What's one representative per class? (typical value that exercises the behavior)

Result: Finite, manageable test suite that covers infinite input space!

Remember: You're not testing all inputs — you're testing all behaviors!