|
|
|
|
|
by jessriedel
848 days ago
|
|
Tbc, based on the comment that looks to be driven almost completely by the fact that they are making a tiny number of incredibly expensive bespoke machines, so they can't just keep extra machines lying around to do unit tests with (both because each machine is expensive, and because the results wouldn't necessarily generalize to other machines). So it sounds like a constraint of the field, not bad choices. |
|
I used to work in automotive and all unit tests didn't require the finished car, just the SW.
Nasa doesn't hava another Voyager probe in their lab floating around in zero gravity to run unit tests on before sending the SW patches, they use simulators.
For calibration you do need the final production HW, but unit tests shouldn't, so maybe there's a confusion here about the type of tests ran.