That makes no sense at all.
> Your example is a perfect illustration
I didn't give an example.
> invariant-based testing can easily be transformed into automated fuzzy tests
'fuzz' not 'fuzzy'. True, but irrelevant to the point being argued.
That makes no sense at all.
> Your example is a perfect illustration
I didn't give an example.
> invariant-based testing can easily be transformed into automated fuzzy tests
'fuzz' not 'fuzzy'. True, but irrelevant to the point being argued.