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

  • 0 posts edited
  • 0 helpful flags
  • 6 votes cast
Jul
22
comment Establishing QA in a new company - models/guidelines to follow?
@lloyd The OP is asking about QA, not testing.
Jun
23
comment Requirements confusion - Functional suitability as Non-functional characteristic (ISO25010)
Short, simple and makes sense.
Jun
22
comment Requirements confusion - Functional suitability as Non-functional characteristic (ISO25010)
See the OP, I included a screenshot of a book clearly showing how Functional suitability is classified as NFR.
Jun
22
comment Requirements confusion - Functional suitability as Non-functional characteristic (ISO25010)
But you miss the point - Functional suitability is - according to ISO25010 - consider NON-FUNCTIONAL, which is the point of this post..it is one of the quality attribute. This is confirmed by other non-functional evaluation frameworks like SNAP and various book, the two of which I quoted.
Jun
17
comment Requirements confusion - Functional suitability as Non-functional characteristic (ISO25010)
Yes I know that but the main issue here is why some authors, including peer reviewed papers, differ on what is functional and non-functional. Why some consider "functional suitability" functional and some do not? It is called "Suitablity" but on the other hand, it deals with "functional completeness, correctness etc.". Some non-functional view I saw simply verified no.of functions against the requirements, not their correct implementation.
Jun
16
comment Should test cases contain more than one step with expected result (ISO 29119 definition)
Well, I am in quite a formal environment and technically speaking, a test case is always a pair of INPUT and exp. OUTPUT, while a test can embrace a session or a series of test cases.
May
21
comment Is there a correct term for testing done by “testers” hired just to use the app as in real life?
+1 for sapient testing, very interesting and true, love the term.
May
21
comment Is there a correct term for testing done by “testers” hired just to use the app as in real life?
I was just typing "ad hoc alpha testing" - thank you, I completely forgot about ad hoc, even though I love context-driven and exploratory testing!
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
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.
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
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.
Nov
10
comment Validation and verification in CMMi, ISO, IEEE. What should I refer to?
@darrick: Acceptance testing is for sure validation, not verification. In acceptance test, the customer decides whether or not this is acceptable and fit for purpose.
Nov
3
comment Validation and verification in CMMi, ISO, IEEE. What should I refer to?
Exactly. I want to justify the ISO. But how can I justify that unit testing is validation against intended use?
Nov
2
comment Validation and verification in CMMi, ISO, IEEE. What should I refer to?
I did not make myself clear. The question "Do I build it right" is a good one but how do you know it is related to working instead of meeting requirements as stated in ISO? E.g. that code is testable, traceable to design, etc. Actually what you said would be validation because its testing whether it works as intended.
Nov
2
comment Validation and verification in CMMi, ISO, IEEE. What should I refer to?
Andrew, I do feel it the same way, yet the contradictions in other standards makes me confused. If you check that IEEE, it verifies/validates each artifact, not saying anything about testing. But as I mentioned earlier, the "requirement for intended use" is a bit vague term because as a tester, I can have just functional spec based on requirements which could be misunderstood. So the thing is what is the source for test cases?
Nov
2
comment Validation and verification in CMMi, ISO, IEEE. What should I refer to?
@Andrew Sorry, it is IEEE Std 1012 Standard for Verification and Validation.
Jul
11
comment Fundamental classification- discrepancies
@Phil Kirkham I would just like to know, especially about exploratory testing. I do think it is functional testing (testing functionality), however there are no documents so it does not fit the definition well..