Talk:System integration testing

2006
Isn't this the same as Integration Testing or are there moron bureacrats who view this as an extra step after I&T?

Can we replace the word "shakesdown" - I don't understand what it means. I'm not a software developer, but I've just come across a document on our intranet which shows Development --> SIT --> Regression so i wanted to understand what "SIT" and "Regression" means - and I can't fully understand what "shakesdown" means when refering to programming.

There is a distinct difference between Integration Testing (sometimes called Integration Testing in the small) and System Integration Testing (Integration Testing in the large). integration testing confirms that the units of a single system co-exist. Whereas System Integration testing confirms that multiple systems co-exist.

Once a system has been tested using a suite of tests there may be future releases. Regression Testing is the re-running of those previous tests to ensure that the system has not been regressed by any of changes.


 * I agree that System testing tests the integration of components into a system, and that System Integration testing tests the integration of systems. So, we probably shouldn't merge. Also, there's a statement about SIT being similar to unit testing. I strongly disagree with that. They're at two opposite ends of the spectrum. DRogers 16:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

More on SIT
System Testing and System Integration Testing should be discussed in different modules.

Kallol (13th Nov, 06)

I guess we are clear about the difference between System Testing and Integration Testing. Even though they can be categorised as two different types of testing, they can be interchangably used (to some extent). For example, testing a few modules combined for flow in your software package can be called Intregration Testing, but testing all the modules combined for all possible flows can be called Integration Testing as well as System Testing.

System Integration Testing, can be defined as taking the best approach of both System and Integration Testing and doing it as a single test (depending on your needs and the demands of your software).

Like the previous comment by DRogers, claming that SIT is similar to Unit Testing, is preposterous !

Vijay (10-OCT-2006)


 * Well, the way I see it,has integrating modules can be called Module Integration (though usually shortened to Integration). Integrating subsystems can be called Subsystem Integration. Integration systems can be called System Integration. I think I see a pattern. The real question is, what is the scope of each article, and what is the overlap? DRogers 18:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

= Article Quality and Cleanup = There are several grammar issues and a number of ambiguous and confusing word choices in this article. Here are a few examples:

"System integration testing is the process of verifying the synchronization between two or more software systems and which can be performed after software system collaboration is completed." A run-on sentence that is not understandable by people outside of the Software industry. The first paragraph should explain things in "lay" terms. Mawcs (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"This is a part of the software testing life cycle for software collaboration involving projects." Difficult to comprehend the meaning of this sentence. The word, "This" requires context. Beginning a paragraph and section with "this" is wrong. Mawcs (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"This kind of software consumers run system integration test (SIT) round before the user acceptance test(UAT) round." Follows previous sentence beginning with "this." Also, use of "round" is ambiguous. There is no context or definition for "software consumers" and it doesn't read well. "This kind of software consumers run..." doesn't make sense to me. Mawcs (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"And software providers usually run a pre-SIT round before Software consumers run their SIT test cases." Don't begin sentences with "And" without an obvious tie-in to the previous sentence. "Software providers" has no context or definition. Again, use of "round" is ambiguous. Mawcs (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to highlight all the errors. In my opinion, the entire article should be scanned and tweaked for grammar and polish. Thanks to Charithk for filling out the article. Now, we need some polish. Use Basic copyediting as a reference. Mawcs (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This article contains numerous links that treat Wikipedia as external URLs. These need Wikification.Mawcs (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Article neglects system hardware
Is the intention to cover only software and not the hardware? In the case of a PC/laptop it may be justifiable to some people to neglect hardware when discussing integration testing but not so for instrumentation. By "neglect" I mean to assume the hardware works perfectly and is not an experimental variable. As a systems engineer coming from a hardware background I could never justify this assumption. We need an article on SIT for complex hardware/software systems that points to this article. At the very least I would like to see the present article mention the limitations/risks of neglecting hardware when performing software SIT.

--Nantizle (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have altered the lede, with a citation, to start to remedy the scope problem in this article. It not only negected the sort of (electronic) system hardware that you were referring to, it also neglected all sorts of system components in non-electronic (or much-more-than-merely electronic) systems such as cars, aircraft, launch vehicles, ground transport prototype technologies like Hyperloop pods, spaceplanes, elevator systems, building equipment, etc., etc.   All of these large systems of technology are the proper full scope of system integration testing.


 * The article still needs a LOT more work (nearly all of the software-specific material is unsourced; it is now challenged) and needs to get the fuller understanding of system integration testing fleshed out. But the problem of the article scope neglecting the hardware completely is now fixed.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)