Evaluative Testing -- poking the subject, and analyzing the results: expected / unexpected -- that is true exploration





  "The combination of not quite sure the right thing and not knowing for certain what the code was going to do - but evaluating as it happens, to me that is exploring" -- exactly same with my own personal observation. that's why being clumsy sometimes is very helpful, because that clumsy data set will become part of the test input and the results are as fascinating / insightful as what one sees in the Large Haldron Collider 😇 💡


https://www.linkedin.com/posts/agw-59661220b_softwaredevelopment-softwaretesting-activity-7305868821058265090-JGjp?utm_source=social_share_send&utm_medium=member_desktop_web&rcm=ACoAADVOWcIBc7VFWTKgh6Qof566qxbgu2eqJDQ

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The phenomenon of QA(quality advocacy) in Test-PhaseSpace

Image
  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...
Read more

do QA/Testers contribute any value to the Product's Quality?

Image
With all due respect, my take on the matter is:  a.  hypothetically,   if a teamA{devs+testers+designers} >> work together == resulting in a product{Quality = 0.95 good}  b. if same teamA{devs+designers} minus the {Testers} >> work together == resulting in a product{Q = 0.65 good} c. then it means the product{Q} suffers a {0.30 good} reduction without the {Testers}  d. so, mathematically, the Testers seem to contribute to the Product{Q} an exact value of "N"  assuming the Devs work on the findings of Testers e. if Devs don't work on the Testers' findings, then the testers still would've contributed their share to the product being built , but the negative impact of the Devs' under-contribution will adversely affect the overall Product{Q} -- making {Q} fall below agreed values.  f. The relationship of contributions from actors {designers,devs,testers} is apparently non-linear --otherwise things would've been so obvious, this wouldn't be...
Read more

Pyramid, Honeycomb, Feather Testing Models

Image
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 ...
Read more