Reputation
Top tag
Next privilege 150 Rep.
Create new tags
Badges
9
Newest
 Promoter
Impact
~3k people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 0 helpful flags
  • 5 votes cast
May
21
comment Is there a correct term for testing done by “testers” hired just to use the app as in real life?
Sure, but in ad-hoc testing, you still aim at finding bugs by verification of requirements. In the alpha testing, it is rather real life scenarios you use to validate the product...I like FAT which you mentioned, makes sense!
May
21
comment Is there a correct term for testing done by “testers” hired just to use the app as in real life?
We have testers (performing boundary analysis, exploratory testing, etc..) and these "testers" who just use the product with no knowledge, not even the functional spec. They just use the product (it is a piece of HW with our SW)
May
21
awarded  Commentator
May
21
comment Is there a correct term for testing done by “testers” hired just to use the app as in real life?
As I mentioned, these are not real testers like the ones who perform system tests against functional specifications. These act as end users who just use the product with real life scenarios. Ad-hoc testing is still testing conducted with the goal of finding defects, our "testers" rather use the system as in the real world and report if there are crashes or bugs but they do not look for them specifically. As "Alpha testing" is done in controlled environment by indenepdent testers to simulare real world scenarios, it seems like the closest one..but FAT seems correct as well.
May
21
revised Is there a correct term for testing done by “testers” hired just to use the app as in real life?
added 25 characters in body
May
21
revised Is there a correct term for testing done by “testers” hired just to use the app as in real life?
added 25 characters in body
May
21
asked Is there a correct term for testing done by “testers” hired just to use the app as in real life?
May
16
revised Should test cases contain more than one step with expected result (ISO 29119 definition)
edited title
May
16
asked Should test cases contain more than one step with expected result (ISO 29119 definition)
Mar
13
awarded  Popular Question
Jan
3
comment Blended testing strategy in agile. Is it really possible to do efficiently?
our project is quite formal and it is a must to prove that all requirements have been tested. In general, most projects require traceability which you cannot really provide without using requirements. Do not get me wrong, i fully understand how to use specs in these techniques, i do not get how the author( rex black) can recommend a strategy which is agile but tge agility comes from not relying on specs.
Jan
3
comment Blended testing strategy in agile. Is it really possible to do efficiently?
You said you do not understand the logic - that is the issue, authors mention that for risk based approach, you do not need spec and hence it is ideal for agile. Now imagine you are on the project and you want to use this blended approach: you would not use any requirements and hence you could not produce relevant test cases for their verification...
Jan
3
answered Blended testing strategy in agile. Is it really possible to do efficiently?
Jan
3
comment Blended testing strategy in agile. Is it really possible to do efficiently?
Well, so you do not write test cases ahead - what do your testers do in the beginning of the sprint? Because suggested strategies do not rely on documentation and advocate exloratory and risk based analysis. I cannot imagine our project without test cases based on the requirements - verification is a crucial aspect of testing.
Apr
10
asked Does system testing precedes system integration testing?
Nov
15
revised ISTQB: testing = analysis but dynamic testing != dynamic analysis?
added 434 characters in body; edited title
Nov
15
revised ISTQB: testing = analysis but dynamic testing != dynamic analysis?
added 434 characters in body; edited title
Nov
15
awarded  Custodian
Nov
15
reviewed Approve ISTQB: testing = analysis but dynamic testing != dynamic analysis?
Nov
15
asked ISTQB: testing = analysis but dynamic testing != dynamic analysis?