a word of caution Rikard Edgren
If you are a faithful reader of this blog, you have probably read some challenges of established ways of testing.
I write stuff like “anyone can do non-functional testing”, “look at the whole picture”, “test coverage is messing things up”, “you can skip all testing techniques”, “requirements are covered elsewhere, so focus on what’s truly important”, “Pass/Fail-addiction” or “be open to serendipity”.
It might be a bad idea to start with these alternative activities, people might think you are crazy.
You might have to do thorough, planned, systematic, requirements-based, to-the-bare-bones testing, in order to get the respect from the rest of the organization. The respect you need for your work to be appreciated and used.
You might need to follow the existing practices, to show respect, and learn about the organization.
So even though a radically different test approach would be faster and better, you should consider “traditional testing” as an appetizer for the main course.
Advice that could apply to other fields of work too 🙂
Good comment!
You can take any idea from anywhere, and see what you can do with it in your situation.
It might not be true, but it can be useful (or not…)
I use the idea that a tester should to know the basic rules (e.g. “traditional testing”), once they know and apply them, the next step is knowing when to break the rules.
I have also had that thought, Andy.
But I think I am abandoning it.
The reason is that the “traditional rules” aren’t that good.
It would be one thing if they were stepping stones, but many testers stay with within the rules, that mostly are limiting.
As an example, the Pass/Fail thinking get stuck, and testers don’t interpret and communicate what they think are important to users.
You learn to be “objective”, and dismiss the subjectivity that end users surely will use.
I guess there is some merit in the tradition, but I’m not sure where…
Good point in your last comment Rikard!
I began to write a long answer, but instead posted my answer as a separate blog post…
It is traditional for testers to fail to read about or study testing. It is traditional for them, if they read about testing, to believe too much of what they read, and criticize too little.
Whatever do people mean when they speak of traditional testing, anyway? I’ve been teaching my methodology for, oh, about 20 years. Is that a tradition yet?
Traditional software testing that is SPOKEN of is ignorant software testing, generally.
I recommend that you ignore any tradition in testing, and focus instead on excellence.
James, I wouldn’t say your methodology is tradition, but it feels perfectly fine to say something like “thetesteye has material along the Kaner/Bach/Bolton tradition.”
Traditional Testing for me is close to ISTQB:
* Plan with time estimates, communicate and get approval.
* Use only requirements and specifications as source
* Write binary tests: pass/fail
* An authority provides oracle/expected results
* Execute the test thoroughly within the boundaries of the test
* Report pass/fail, at least one bug per fail.
Even though all of these are limiting, there might be excellence inside.
And I feel it is necessary to study the history of software testing, it helps me learn and un-learn.
Filtering through the fluff can be difficult enough. There are a lot of good idea’s floating about out there, but for every one their are a hundred misinformed, or pointless suggestions.
Perhaps that’s a real skill in its own? Preventing your beautiful testing mind from being corrupted?
Good point, Darren.
It is a testing skill; flooded by information, being able to distinguish what is interesting and potentially important.
But being in love with your beautiful mind sounds dangerous…
If you view it as a thing of beauty, which indeed the human mind is, then you’ll much more likely treat it well.
True!!
[…] a word of caution Working with the testing debt – part 2 » […]