# Compare with testing case and test software
|\ | test case | test software |
|-|-|-|
|Target | just for test | Like pg tool using software arch[^0-6] |
| developing| fast | slow |
| exterxion | bad | well |
| new case | copy and rewrite | adding testing case in config[^0-4]|
| different flow | no side effect[^0-1] | merge different flow[^0-5]|
| human resource | High require[^0-2] | low to no needed[^0-3] |

[^0-1]: Like new case, always write a new case
[^0-2]: Every new cases will need a human resoure to understanding the new flow and wirte a new code
[^0-3]: If the framework do not need to change, this can be translate to customer to mantain it
[^0-4]: Use selection cmd to construct self-define flow
[^0-5]: e.g. Add more switch control
[^0-6]: 

### testing case:
#### advantages:
* Case by case programming
* Don't need waiting all case flow be finished
* e.g: If existing 6 cases, and only fsk tx xtal (flow/ command table/ response data(include tuning algrothon)) is ready, the software team can just implement this case
#### disadvantage:
* If flow changing(add/ remove) in testing case, the program will be re-writen
* e.g: testing flow like A->B->C->B->C->D, and changing to A->B->C->D->B->C->D, this case will need to rewirte[^1-1]
[^1-1]: Because all commad sequence is fixed, if the sequence change, the program will be re-organize

* Only suitable for one case, If new test flow, the program should be rewirte

### test software:
#### advantages:
* flexable to add new cases in the same framework arch.
* flow changing just only changing the config setting
* Totally handover to customer for mantain

#### disadvantage:
* Need whole flow to designe framework
* that means flow/ command table/ response data(include tuning algrothon) shoud be ready