Integration testing could be better Component integration testing

[bennyvw]

robotframework-RFCP-syllabus/website/docs/chapter-01/01_purpose.md

Line 44 in 7edf037

Robot Framework is typically not used for **component testing** nor **integration testing** because its primary strength lies in higher-level testing, such as system, acceptance, and end-to-end testing, where behavior-driven and keyword-based approaches excel. Component testing requires low-level, granular tests focusing on individual units of code, often necessitating direct interaction with the codebase, mocking, or stubbing, which are better handled by unit testing frameworks like JUnit, pytest, or NUnit. Similarly, integration testing at a low level often requires precise control over service interactions, such as API stubs or protocol-level testing, which may not align with Robot Framework's abstraction-oriented design. While Robot Framework can technically handle these cases through custom libraries, its overhead and design philosophy make it less efficient compared to tools specifically tailored for low-level and tightly scoped testing tasks.

Integration testing could better be called ‘component integration testing’, because just before the statement is made that RF is very suitable to be used for System integration testing

[GerwinLaagland]

Originally I seem to recall we wanted to try and stick to the ISTQB test levels. The ladder canonically was:

• Component Testing
• Integration Testing
• System Testing
• Acceptance Testing

However, we tagged one of our own on there which the End-to-End Testing, and ISTQB terms might not be familiar other people as well. Which might make Integration Testing somewhat ambiguous. It might do to clarify the sentence/wording structure where Integration testing is mentioned.

Robot Framework is typically not used for component testing or low‑level integration testing. Its strength is in higher‑level testing such as system, system integration, acceptance, and end‑to‑end testing, where behavior‑driven and keyword‑based approaches excel.

By adding 'low-level' and adding some punctuation, it should help perhaps already. We could also add (component integration testing) but I don't know if we want to muddy the waters with more terminologies. 🤔

[bennyvw]

I agree on sticking to the ISTQB terms. My proposal: close this one.