| ??? 04/18/05 19:12 Read: times |
#91865 - one more reason not to rely on testing Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I was lucky in this case. We had a mechanical actuator that exercised the device. After several days of continuous testing the device would fail. However, that only showed me that it failed... not how. Finding out how was a hair-pulling experience. Fortunately such nightmare-scenarios are few and far between (at least here anyway).
GB |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Bit Bang i2c | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You should | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Errr | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| a slight problem | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I was | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Licence | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| call it SMB | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| maybe different | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Maybe! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Correction! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| SETB SDA | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| misunderstanding? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| re: | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Thanks to Atmel | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 'Stub' resistors missing? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Pull ups ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not those... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Rp | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| IIC is owned by philips why not go there | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You're right! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Set port as input - NO SUCH THING! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| oh yes there is | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes, but not here? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| nowhere in the documentation | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| one more reason not to rely on testing | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| one more reason not to rely on testing | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Catch 'em young ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Yes | 01/01/70 00:00 |