-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 433
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
should we be linking Requirements with specific test cases? #6
Comments
I think that's a good approach. |
Yes, definitely! Get Outlook for Android On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:54 PM +0800, "Gerhard" notifications@github.com wrote: I think that's a good approach. — |
ok agreed, but this means that we still have a long road ahead with this project ;) |
commjoen
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 30, 2018
Update 0x15-V8-Resiliency_Against_Reverse_Engineering_Requirements.md
commjoen
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 4, 2019
Update 0x15-V8-Resiliency_Against_Reverse_Engineering_Requirements.md
cpholguera
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Aug 23, 2020
Update 0x91-Appendix-B_References.md
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The discussion at #5 got me thinking should we be linking ASVS Requirements with specific test cases in the MSTG.
advatage: we can keep generic Requirements and still have detailed checks based on OS specific testcases.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: