meta user
network profile
| bio | website | ballymennoniteblogger.blogspo… |
|---|---|---|
| location | Southeastern, Pennsylvania | |
| age | 40 | |
| visits | member for | 2 years, 1 month |
| seen | Feb 13 '12 at 17:46 | |
| stats | profile views | 40 |
I'm an automated and manual tester, specializing in the use of Automated QA's TestComplete testing tool for load testing and regression testing
|
May 13 |
comment |
Techniques to write good acceptance criteria for user stories I've found that, when using this methodology of softare development and design, the user story is definitely the key. Get a good handle on that, and everything just falls into place. If the user story is too general, you end up getting bogged down and dragging out development. If it's too specific, then you get bogged down in a lot of little detailed stories. Finding that balance is key. |
|
May 13 |
comment |
When writing manual test cases and scripts, how much detail is too much detail when documenting the steps? Agreed. There's all the data that is setup behind the scenes, configuration requirements, environment requirements, etc. That stuff needs to be documented as well. I guess it's the stuff like "Click on the OK button" as specific step to be executed after a step for entering data on a form rather than just including in the step for data entry "Enter and save data XYZ in the form". That's a trivial example but that's kind of what I'm aiming at in this question. |
|
May 13 |
comment |
Techniques to write good acceptance criteria for user stories For creating acceptances tests for new features, I'm not sure how researching past bugs will help a lot in creating those acceptance tests. While it may help in understanding pit-falls experienced in the past and, therefore, informing other areas of the process (design, additional user stories, etc), writing acceptance tests for a specific user story I think should be linked to the expectations of that user story. |
|
May 13 |
comment |
What are the forms of testing that testers commonly forget? Agreed. That's something that goes towards the "polish" of a finished product. There's a lot of focus on the big functionality but what makes users come back to a product is not just whether or not it meets their needs, but whether it is clean and polished while doing so. |
|
May 13 |
comment |
What are some good software QA community websites? It's a matter of finding the right forum... there are different forums for different topics... and it's more of a conversational setup rather than a Q and A setup. StackExchange here is for the quick "Q&A" while SQA Forums is probably best for discussions and longer conversations about topics. |
|
May 13 |
comment |
How does a tester's perspective toward software differ from a developer's? Fantastic, Joe! Consider this slideshow bookmarked. |
|
May 13 |
comment |
What are the forms of testing that testers commonly forget? Rather than just "most important", how about editing it to just "What are the forms of testing that testers commonly forget?" That allows for the same kinds of answers that are already being given without the subjectivity of opinion of the words "most important". |
|
May 13 |
comment |
How does a tester's perspective toward software differ from a developer's? Good statements, Lyndon. I think it's those multiple hats that really distinguish good analytically thinking testers from folks who just use a standard set of tools. |
|
May 13 |
comment |
How does a tester's perspective toward software differ from a developer's? Let me add that I think an EXCELLENT developer has some of that tester in them because it is in finding out those strange and weird interactions that come from analysis is how they find out new wonderful and amazing things to build. Likewise EXCELLENT testers need a good sense of synthesis to be able to know how to put the things together to create those new wonderful things so that they can better understand how they come apart again. |
|
May 12 |
comment |
How do I satisfy external auditors that automated tests are at least as effective as manual tests? Hi, @Todd. We're using TFS here which supports linking test automation to test cases. This might be another way to go. |
|
May 12 |
comment |
What are some good software QA community websites? I thought I recognized you, Joe, from SQAForums... In any case, note below that I add my vote for SQAForums. A great place to hang and get good input and advice. |
|
May 12 |
comment |
Performance testing - a way in? Are you talking about "Concurrent users" or "simultaneous users"? The two are different in that concurrent are users clicking the same buttons at roughly the same time while simultaneous are users that are all on the site at the same time but perhaps in different areas, doing different tasks. |
|
May 12 |
comment |
How do I satisfy external auditors that automated tests are at least as effective as manual tests? I think a combination of this and the suggestion of detailed logging by @Carmi is going to be the way to go. Also, @Lyndon 's suggestion for a BDD I think will also play a part eventually but the logging and manual documentation will be the best short term "bang for the buck". |
|
May 12 |
comment |
How do I satisfy external auditors that automated tests are at least as effective as manual tests? Now that is a question that I'm not sure I can answer as I'm relatively new to the company and am not sure how decisions are made, at least the first part of the question I cannot answer. As for the second part, there is a rather well documented set of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), policies, work-flows, etc., that are executed for every software change. If manual testing needs to be performed, there's an exhaustive paperwork trail as to what was done, how it was done, what were the results, and who was involved. And that paper trail is, right now, mostly manual. |
|
May 12 |
comment |
How do I convince someone who's bought the Record-Playback line that object oriented framework is essential? Try now... I had something bad in the URl. |
|
May 12 |
comment |
How do I satisfy external auditors that automated tests are at least as effective as manual tests? It actually is the medical industry, pharma and medical devices, but primarily in document exchange and patient records and history. Hence the heavy regulation. Additionally, while we don't specifically deal with the devices and compounds, patient safety is part of the whole process so there is a lot of necessary reliability in the applications. As for declaring the automation reliable, it's not quite that simple. Internally, proving to our internal auditors would be easy. But when the external auditors come in, they'll need something more substantial. |
|
May 12 |
comment |
How do I satisfy external auditors that automated tests are at least as effective as manual tests? That's the tack I'm currently taking, Rakesh. We're running tests manually and automated in parallel to show that the outputs of both sets of tests are the same, that the tests are finding the exact same kinds of defects, and that the automation is actually more reliable and faster than the manual processes. The only problem with this approach is that it is very resource intensive in that it sucks up a LOT of personnel resource to do both paths until such time as the auditors are satisfied. |
|
May 12 |
comment |
How do I satisfy external auditors that automated tests are at least as effective as manual tests? Two your first question, a bit of both. Some of the testing involves the UI, some of it involves behind-the-scenes processes (SQL stored procs, protocol messaging, etc). Test automation, for me, kind of covers all of that stuff. As for your second comment, yeah, you're right. I've adjusted the question title appropriately. |
|
May 12 |
comment |
How do I satisfy external auditors that automated tests are at least as effective as manual tests? I'll take a look at those two tools, Lyndon, as that might actually answer one of the questions that the validation manager here had for me. Do you have any experience using StoryQ with a tool like TestComplete or QTP? Will it work with those testing tools or is StoryQ more intended for an environment like Visual Studio? |
