DevelopsenseLogo

Another Silly Quantitative Model

John D. Cook recently issued a blog post, How many errors are left to find?, in which he introduces yet another silly quantitative model for estimating the number of bugs left in a program. The Lincoln Index, as Mr. Cook refers to it here, was used as a model for evaluating typographical errors, and was based on a method for estimating the population of a given species of animal. There … Read more

A Transpection Session: Inputs and Expected Results

A transpection is a dialog for learning. James Bach describes it here. Transpection is a technique we use a lot to refine ideas for presentations, for articles, for our course, or for our own understanding. Sometimes it’s all of them put together. Transpective sessions with James have led me sharpen ideas and to do work of which I’m very proud—on test coverage, for example (articles here, here, and here). Sometimes … Read more

Testers: Get Out of the Quality Assurance Business

The other day on Twitter, Cory Foy tweeted a challenge: “Having a QA department is a sign of incompetency in your Development department. Discuss.” Here’s what I think: I’m a tester, and it’s time for our craft to grow up. Whatever the organizational structure of our development shops, it’s time for us testers to get out of the Quality Assurance business. In the fall of 2008, I was at the … Read more

Best Bug… or Bugs?

And now for the immodest part of the EuroSTAR 2009 Test Lab report:  I won the Best Bug award, although it’s not clear to me which bug got the nod, since I reported several fairly major problems.  I tested OpenEMR.  For me, one candidate for the most serious problem would have been a consistent pattern of inconsistency in input handling and error checking.  I observed over a dozen instances of … Read more

Should We Call Test-Driven Development Something Else?

In the first post in this series, I proposed “that those things that we usually call ‘unit tests‘ be called ‘unit checks‘.” I stand by the proposal, but I should clarify something important about it. See, it’s all a matter of timing. And, of course, sapience. After James Bach‘s blog post titled “Sapience and Blowing Peoples’ Minds“, Joe Rainsberger commented: Sadly, the distinction between testing and checking makes describing test-driven … Read more

Tests vs. Checks: The Motive for Distinguishing

The word “criticism” has several meanings and connotations. To criticize, these days, often means to speak reproachfully of someone or something, but criticism isn’t always disparaging. Way, way back when, I studied English literature, and read the work of many critics. Literary critics and film critics aren’t people who merely criticize, as we use the word in common parlance. Instead, the role of the critic is to contextualize—to observe and … Read more

Upcoming Events: KWSQA and STAR West

I’m delighted to have been asked to present a lunchtime talk at the Kitchener-Waterloo Software Quality Association, Wednesday September 30. I’ll be giving a reprise of my STAR East keynote talk, What Haven’t You Noticed Lately? Building Awareness in Testers. (The title has been pinched from Mark Federman, who got it from Terence McKenna, who may have got it from Marshall McLuhan, but maybe not.) The following week, it’s STAR … Read more

Pass vs. Fail vs. Is There a Problem Here?

A test, for the purposes of this discussion, is at its core a process of exploration. Initially, our community described exploratory testing as “simultaneous test design, test execution, and learning.” Later descriptions included “simultaneous test design, test execution, and learning, with an emphasis on learning“, “a parallel process of test design, test execution, test result interpretation, and learning, with an emphasis on learning”. At the Workshop on Heuristic and Exploratory … Read more

James Lyndsay Mea Culpa

In a recent posting, I made a mistake: I erroneously stated that James Lyndsay, the genial host of the London Workshops on Exploratory Testing (LEWT), had not attended a LAWST conference before setting up LEWT. Except I was wrong: he had. Shame on me for not checking. If you’re not aware of James’ work, you would do well to know about it. He’s the author of a rich set of … Read more

Automation and Coverage Part II

Last week posted a blog entry on automation and coverage, in which I questioned the usefulness of trying to cover “everything” with automated tests, comparing them to the CCTV cameras that are in use all over the place, but especially in Britain. Despite the limitations of such schemes, there might also be some useful aspects. What might they be? For certain areas that we decide to cover with a camera, … Read more