Reputation
Top tag
Next privilege 150 Rep.
Create tags
Badges
6
Impact
~2k people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 0 helpful flags
  • 2 votes cast
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..