verification-ladder

Determining testing depth for a code change involves mapping the change type to appropriate validation rungs, such as crate tests, integration tests, and binary smokes. This process prevents over- or under-testing by matching the strategy to the change's impact.

Classifying confidence levels for code validation requires a framework to honestly assess and report stability after executing testing rungs. It reports on executed rungs, test outcomes, unverified aspects, and the highest honest confidence level achieved.

You need integration tests and watched live runs for module changes when the change impacts core systems like networking or user authentication. Selecting validation depth ensures that critical modules receive appropriate rungs beyond basic unit tests.

Reporting unverified aspects after running a test plan involves documenting executed rungs, test outcomes, and remaining gaps. This framework provides an honest confidence classification rather than assuming full coverage.

Yes, this validation planning approach works without external testing dependencies. It provides a structural framework to select validation steps and communicate confidence levels using your existing testing rungs and infrastructure.

Your test plan over-tests minor code modifications because it lacks a mapped validation ladder to scale testing depth. Mapping change types to appropriate rungs prevents unnecessary integration tests or watched live runs for low-impact modifications.