Tester's Musings

I will defer to the term polyhistor(specifically as a GenXer) though 'pattern weaver' (an emergent GenA term) is a more synergistic way of saying it.  A polyhistor is basically a person with a lot of inquiries, spanning different interests. A polyhistor's thinking framework maximizes the proto-synthetic nature of the mind -- meaning it is able to quest at a given scenario / or multiple scenarios and synthesize a pattern/s and from there synthesize a hypothesis that might uncover the plausible source that is causing the pattern.  Such polyhistors make good testers (and theorists).  'I will a little think' -- so said a polyhistor once. source:  pattern weaver as a phrase: no known history as per 2026  youtube:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_Ym61SEM0o 

.The atoms in the test_phase_space are data points. .The root [smallest unit] of testing is not atomic, but rather composite [comprised of multiple atoms(data_points)].  .The smallest unit that expresses 'testing' is the testpath: the testpath alone determines the SUT's properties: ramification level and the peculiarities [particular interaction/s with specific data points] to be encountered.  .The essence of Testing is to 'know' the testpath under quest. And by knowing, we can then evaluate the SUT[Subject Under Test].  .Which one to know first is guided by risk-based prioritization. 

If Testing employs the scientific method... then... By the following dictionary definition alone, the Testing Phenomenon is close to being called a Science in itself. source/trigger of musing:   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/maaike-brinkhof-1942b725_testing-that-it-works-versus-finding-problems-activity-7419683287222161408-n3Va?utm_source=social_share_send&utm_medium=member_desktop_web&rcm=ACoAADVOWcIBc7VFWTKgh6Qof566qxbgu2eqJDQ

  thoughts on  https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ i'd agree that testing is still about artefacts and algorithms, but test cases are so pen-and-paper scripting. And maybe they are the earliest, if but the crudest manifestations of testmaping. What we once thought could be resolved by test cases, are actually more thoroughly resolved with testmapping / mapping out by scenarios. Hence i would readily junk test case logging for testmap documentation.

Personal take: when your development team (coders+testers) is small (and i mean real small, like less than 10 people), you know you got each others' backs. And so I've accepted the 'title-only-ticket' (especially one with a descriptive title), given that whoever created it can and will reliably discuss it with the group, or visually demo it, with a greater than 99% certainty of replicability. It is then up to me to docu my own understanding of the issue at hand, repeat it to them, and once agreed, my docu becomes the standard by which this issue will be judged. The above scenario mostly happens within mature teams, i guess. A most irresponsible move is to create a title-only-ticket, then halfway through your demo you can't remember the STR(steps-to-replicate) to show everyone the issue. That is an irresponsible waste of everyone's time. A team that can abbreviate it's WIP(work in progress) is a great team; after all, WIP is transient -- however we go about i...

Cartoon image is from Wayne Roseberry ( source link )   totally agree with this [ source link ] , though I seem to call them slightly differently: a. Model/modeling = how i look at the {subject_under_test}, what is it trying to solve, what are its other uses b. Parts, topic, assesments == {Features/Featurettes} , {Scenarios} , {Evaluations} ; c. {Coverage} = [ Qty{Features,Featurettes} + Qty{Scenarios} ] ; d. {Q} = Evaluations[ {Features,Featurettes} x {Scenarios} ] ; e.  {Q scoped }  = Evaluations[ Qty{Features,Featurettes} x Qty{Scenarios} ] ; the last one (e.) is... .... a corollary of (c.) and (d.) ; .... essentially the contents of {test report, bug report} .