How much time should be allotted to each level of test activity (unit test, integration test, system test, end-to-end test)? it varies; but definitely just enough to get the job done to an agreed level of Acceptance Credence. A model that is not adaptable to the task at hand constricts development, and needlessly constricts the actors themselves(coder, tester) -- such that, either (a) the team starts to get coerced to follow the model, sacrificing any innate efficiency; or (b) the team ignores the model and lets the nature of the task dictate the most efficient work flow. The nature of the test_paths themselves would provide the impetus to place emphasis on either (c) integration tests (e.g. majority of the test_paths are integration subsystems); (d) a balance of unit tests and end-to-end tests (e.g. the product is simple, or a self-contained supersystem); or (e) a balance of unit, integration, and comprehensive systemic tests ...
Quality Advocacy \___ 3rd tier/level --- designers, coders \___ 2nd tier/level --- quality advocates \___ 1st tier/level --- grassroots testers ================= definitions: ================= ..Quality [ Q ] = the state of the product (high or low) at any given time (m). ..QA [ Quality Advocacy ] = the monitoring/measuring of quality to know quality ; unless it is monitored/measured, quality [ Q ] cannot be known. Quality Advocacy extends to all 3 tiers/levels. ..QA [ Quality Assurance ] = working together as a Development Team (coders + testers + proj.mgr + designers + etc.) which will always deliver a specific level of quality. ..software tester = 1st level, grassroots interactor [someone...
A Quality Advocate isn't / shouldn't be about auditing the work of your fellow testers. The work of a Quality Advocate should be to check the current testing procedures vis-a-vis the product/prototype under test. When you have testers testing under you / for you, the supervisor's role is not to check if the tester tested the product properly. Because the tester has already been coached to be critical-thinking, and exploratory -- so assuming his/her evaluative report shows exactly that -- then rather the sup's job is to see if there's an expanded way to model the product under test, to give a more justified evaluation. What if we find there is nothing more to expand? Then either (a) you, as a supervisor, have failed in your task; or (b) your test team is above par excellent. note: 'justified' : General Context: In a general sense, "justified" can mean that something is reasonable, logical, or well-founded. For example, "Her concerns were...
Comments
Post a Comment