tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21132099.post3597500469136746611..comments2023-09-01T13:36:59.610+05:30Comments on Tester Tested !: Schools of testing, Test experts, and Blood bath - Why do they exist?Pradeep Soundararajanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17849721523107325938noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21132099.post-53642444399345157602008-03-23T01:26:00.000+05:302008-03-23T01:26:00.000+05:30To anonymous and Pradeep:quote:"Testing is questio...To anonymous and Pradeep:<BR/><BR/>quote:<BR/>"Testing is questioning a product in order to evaluate it." -- Very True but incomplete ( Thats what I feel )<BR/><BR/>AND <BR/><BR/>It would be better if "Testing is questioning a product in order to evaluate it as per Clients/Customers/Users requirements " <BR/><BR/><BR/>I think the first definition is too incomplete.<BR/>But the other definition is even worse. <BR/><BR/>First definition is perfect as it is, but I like to add two other definitions to make the picture more complete. I just thing that only one definition of testing is not enought. <BR/><BR/>So from my point of view, but not my words:<BR/>Testing <BR/>= is questioning a product in order to evaluate it<BR/>= is process of searching defects in what more shortest period of time and of the fastest assurance of their correction<BR/>= is looking for anything, what according to your opinion as a tester, could unnecessary lower value of a product in eyes of some stakeholder. <BR/><BR/>What you think about it?<BR/><BR/>AnnaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21132099.post-36055890814613528372008-02-06T02:36:00.000+05:302008-02-06T02:36:00.000+05:30Aaahhh, one of the days when I like the whealth of...Aaahhh, one of the days when I like the whealth of the internet. It seems <BR/><BR/>to me that the discussion about "schools" is currently on a high. I also <BR/><BR/>just finished the part of Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of scientific <BR/><BR/>revolution" that defines the schools concept (that is the basis for the <BR/><BR/>book and the context driven school)<BR/><BR/>About a week ago Dawn Forester wrote on the [software-testing] yahoogroup <BR/><BR/>all the questions which JJ seems to have taken as points to make his case.<BR/><BR/>The most puzzling question for me is "Do I have to join a school?". If I <BR/><BR/>don't know ANY schools of testing I try to find out about the fundamental <BR/><BR/>views of one and then compare it to another one and so on.<BR/>Only these insights will lead me to a choice - which can also be not to <BR/><BR/>join any school.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous wrote "Testing is questioning a product in order to evaluate it <BR/><BR/>as per Clients/Customers/Users requirements" which Chris specified by <BR/><BR/>adding "James Bach said to the real consumers of testing: management of <BR/><BR/>the company[...]".<BR/><BR/>In this case I think both descriptions limit the view on what a tester <BR/><BR/>takes - probably unconciously - into account. Presenting a risk to <BR/><BR/>management needs to be based on something. So if you present that risk you <BR/><BR/>say "if the system goes live, people might die" and not "if the system <BR/><BR/>goes live we've got a 34.7% chance of it failing when executing function <BR/><BR/>XYZ". You implicitly take the people who could die as "stakeholders" which <BR/><BR/>influences your testing.<BR/><BR/>I admit that the "stakeholder" view can basically go on forever if you <BR/><BR/>produce a tree containing paths who show stakeholder-relations, but in <BR/><BR/>this case the expertise of the tester should enable him to define a <BR/><BR/>certain depth of the tree.<BR/><BR/>Pradeep said "Are you OK to travel in such planes [with unmet <BR/><BR/>requirements]?"<BR/>It is correct in the context with ONLY "questioning the requirements".<BR/><BR/>But also in an environment where you have testers revealing more <BR/><BR/>requirements: aren't flying in these planes all the time and isn't that <BR/><BR/>the way testers want it to be, in the sence of a scenario that in <BR/><BR/>incorporates a minimum of risk?<BR/><BR/>We asume that the risk of the plane crashing has been reduced to a minimum <BR/><BR/>possible with the time, budget and capabilities available.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Greetings<BR/>MarkusAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21132099.post-88147594025520520752008-02-04T17:19:00.000+05:302008-02-04T17:19:00.000+05:30@Anonymous,"Testing is questioning a product in or...@Anonymous,<BR/><BR/><I>"Testing is questioning a product in order to evaluate it." -- Very True but incomplete ( Thats what I feel )</I><BR/><BR/>AND <BR/><BR/><I> It would be better if "Testing is questioning a product in order to evaluate it as per Clients/Customers/Users requirements " </I><BR/><BR/>That's fantastic provided you have answers to the following questions:<BR/><BR/>a) How do you know what the customer wants?<BR/><BR/>b) Why do you think your customers/clients/requirements/users know what they want?<BR/><BR/>c) How would products like mobile phones produced without consulting you? ( the user , the customer )<BR/><BR/>d) Can you or anyone challenge that the requirement document is complete?<BR/><BR/>e) Why do people call a phase in software development as "Requirement *Gathering*? If they have to gather,it has to be scattered - where is it scattered? How can they know where all to look? How do they recognize a requirement?<BR/><BR/>f) I was getting wood work done for my new house. As wood work progressed and I saw things building up, I changed my ideas, some of which the carpenter understood and some of which I could communicate in his terms and most of which he didn't understand. Why do you think such problem doesn't exist with development of software?<BR/><BR/>g) Would you want to vary your definition for product companies who develop, test and then sell their product?<BR/><BR/>h) Sometime back, I was watching investigation of a flight crash. NTSB, who published a final report that said something like, "Some requirements were missed and hence not developed and hence not tested ( because the requirement to test it did not exist )"<BR/><BR/>Are you OK to travel in such planes?<BR/><BR/>i) Do you understand every line of what your Requirement gathering team writes? (because only if you understand you could test with its help.)<BR/><BR/>Note that I am NOT trying to say chuck out the requirement document but I am saying Requirement Document is just ONE of the oracles that helps a tester. <BR/><BR/>A tester needs to test anything within his scope - which includes the requirement document, too. <BR/><BR/>Requirement document is NOT a Holy Bible or Bhagvad Gita or Quran. It is a document developed by humans who by virtue of being humans - make mistakes.<BR/><BR/>If you think, as a tester, you have to do a great job - question the requirements.<BR/><BR/>Once you question the requirements you might want to change your definition.<BR/><BR/>Also, you used a word "better" but never said "better for whom?"<BR/><BR/>For me - Nah! For you - Ha!<BR/><BR/>You are FREE to have any definition you want but if its not helping you to do a great job - something wrong - both with you and the definition you chose to follow.<BR/><BR/>If you dont want to do a great job then both things are perfect - you and your definition.Pradeep Soundararajanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849721523107325938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21132099.post-45022191894704412802008-02-04T17:11:00.000+05:302008-02-04T17:11:00.000+05:30What a bizarre blog post JJ made! I do not find th...What a bizarre blog post JJ made! I do not find that experts are necessarily at each other's throats. They disagree, to be sure, but the real experts disagree cordially, respecting each other's expertise.<BR/><BR/>Testing is the process of determining the risk involved in releasing the product to the next stage (be it UAT or the general user population), in my opinion. I think this is a good way of relating what James Bach said to the real consumers of testing: management of the company, which management has to make the decision on whether to release the software or not.<BR/><BR/>As for "Testing is questioning a product in order to evaluate it as per Clients/Customers/Users requirements" what happens if the requirements haven't been collected correctly. Perhaps some are defective, or missing, or surplus. The product may evaluate to be as per requirements, but be useless.<BR/><BR/>I may be in Pune in March; I don't know where you normally hang out (Chennai?) but would love to meet you if you or I are in the vicinity of each other.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06534842755063770798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21132099.post-60104386090927722402008-02-04T16:53:00.000+05:302008-02-04T16:53:00.000+05:30"Testing is questioning a product in order to eval..."Testing is questioning a product in order to evaluate it." -- Very True but incomplete ( Thats what I feel )<BR/><BR/>It would be better if "Testing is questioning a product in order to evaluate it as per Clients/Customers/Users requirements "<BR/><BR/>Any comments on that Pradeep ????????Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com