A while back I wrote a post on coverage. In fact, I’ve written a few posts about coverage, but I’m talking about this one. A question came up recently on LinkedIn that helped me to realize I had left out something important. In that post, referring to coverage as “the proportion of the product that has been tested”, I said A software product is not a static, tangible thing; it’s a … Read more
A tester asks… How do we handle production bugs? When management asks “Did you test this?”. how do I respond? When management asks “Why didn’t you find that bug?”, the first step is to accept in your own mind responsibility for looking for bugs, but not a commitment to finding every bug. The latter is a great aspiration, but an unreasonable commitment, and management shouldn’t be holding you to it. … Read more
Frequently, both online and in face-to-fact conversations, testers express reservations to me about making a clear distinction between testing and checking when talking to others. It’s true: “test” is an overloaded word. In some contexts, it refers to a heuristic process: evaluating a product by learning about it through experiencing, exploring and experimenting; that’s what testers refer to when they’re talking about testing, and that’s how we describe it in … Read more
In several of our Rapid Software Testing classes, for the last four years at least, these three slides have part of our materials on risk: And then what do you know?! This happened. (“Taylor Swift Crashes Ticketmaster as Fans Scoop Up Presale Tickets”; here’s the link.) And this happened too… (“Justice Dept. is Said to Investigate Ticketmaster’s Parent Company”) Here’s the link to that. Don’t say we didn’t warn you.
“The real problem is that programmers have spent far too much time worrying about efficiency in the wrong places and at the wrong times; premature optimization is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming.” -Donald Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming Most of the time testing shouldn’t be too formal — unless you want to miss lots of bugs. To test something formally means … Read more
After almost a year of the blog lying fallow, it’s time to continue the series on Testing Deep and Shallow that begins here. (Shallow testing (not an insult!) is testing that has a chance of finding every easy bug. Deep testing maximizes the chance of finding every elusive bug that matters.) Premise 6 of Rapid Software Testing is about cost and value. “We commit to performing credible, cost-effective testing, and … Read more
Well… the new developsense.com site has been up for a week, and it seems stable. Time for an actual post. First: this site is now modern-looking and responsive. There are some nice new features (including a catalog of videos), and many more to come. I think it all looks great, and the reviews have been overwhelmingly positive. That’s really down to one person. This site (along with the Rapid Software … Read more
When we talk about deep and shallow testing in the Rapid Software Testing namespace, some people might assume that we mean “deep testing” is good and decent and honourable and pure, and that we mean “shallow” to be an insult, based on some kind of moral judgement. But we don’t. “Shallow” is not an insult. It’s a description. Depth and shallowness are ways of talking about the thoroughness of testing, … Read more
Many years ago, I went on a quest. “Coverage” seemed to be an important word in testing, but it began to occur to me that I had been thinking about it in a vague, hand-wavey kind of way. I sensed that I was not alone in that. I wanted to know what people meant by coverage. I wanted to know what I meant by coverage. In the Rapid Software Testing … Read more