Comments on: Better Allpairs Test Tool

By: JTD

JTD — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 13:46:38 +0000

I must say, I find that so far PICT is very trustworthy. The combinations are representative and complete. It is also a very useful tool with the option of creating constraints (which any other tool have limitations of).
But in my opinion PICT lacks speed, it takes forever to create a large test set with constraints and a large set of variables. It also ‘eats’ up all the resources of the CPU. But this is probably inherent to all pair wise test tools with constraints. But in all one of the best (freeware!) test tools.

By: Toby

Toby — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 08:36:10 +0000

On your recommendation I checked out PICT and find it a very useful tool. I like expecially the simple format of the input file. I used it to do a live demo yesterday and it worked every time I created a new file! I wonder how much I need to test the tool itself though? Has anyone reported any bugs on PICT yet?

[James’ Reply: The great mystery of PICT is how is it tested and why should we trust it. It’s not open source and there is no forum to support it, as far as I know.]

By: Christopher Meisenzahl

Christopher Meisenzahl — Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:38:33 +0000

Thanks Peter, definitely interested in that.

By: Peter Zimmerer

Peter Zimmerer — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 08:17:07 +0000

I agree, yes, PICT is really a very interesting tool!
I will talk about that topic in my 90-minute class “Combinatorial Testing Explained” at SD Best Practices Conference 2006 in Boston, MA, USA on September 13, 2006, see https://www.cmpevents.com/SDe6/a.asp?option=G&V=3&id=271406.

By: Chris Meisenzahl

Chris Meisenzahl — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:43:20 +0000

I’ve been tinkering w/ PICT for a couple months and love it so far. I prefer the diagnostic output of your PERL prorgam, but PICT’s options are great.

Chris
http://amateureconblog.blogspot.com