140 reputation
6
bio website
location
age
visits member for 2 years, 8 months
seen Jan 17 at 10:04

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?
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
awarded  Supporter
Nov
3
accepted Validation and verification in CMMi, ISO, IEEE. What should I refer to?
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
awarded  Student
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.
Nov
2
revised Validation and verification in CMMi, ISO, IEEE. What should I refer to?
added 8 characters in body