Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 175 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Visit Stack Exchange
2 added 1 character in body
source | link

I once tested a WindowWindows client UI by randomly banging on the keyboard while my coworker randomly moved and clicked the mouse. I found bugs that way, and I could reproduce them, but (at least initially) I couldn't tell you the exact set of keystrokes and mouse clicks that triggered the problem. That is monkey testing.

Exploratory testing is testing without a script or a predefined set of test cases. Perhaps the main idea about exploratory testing is that it is possible (and productive) to start testing with an ambiguous or loosely-defined goal. Wikipedia says this about exploratory testing:

According to Cem Kaner & James Marcus Bach, exploratory testing is more a mindset or "...a way of thinking about testing" than a methodology. They also say that it crosses a continuum from slightly exploratory (slightly ambiguous or vaguely scripted testing) to highly exploratory (freestyle exploratory testing).

These are not meant to be non-overlapping categories of testing; rather, they are different ways of approaching the problem.

I don't know how ad-hoc testing is supposed to differ from exploratory testing.

I once tested a Window client UI by randomly banging on the keyboard while my coworker randomly moved and clicked the mouse. I found bugs that way, and I could reproduce them, but (at least initially) I couldn't tell you the exact set of keystrokes and mouse clicks that triggered the problem. That is monkey testing.

Exploratory testing is testing without a script or a predefined set of test cases. Perhaps the main idea about exploratory testing is that it is possible (and productive) to start testing with an ambiguous or loosely-defined goal. Wikipedia says this about exploratory testing:

According to Cem Kaner & James Marcus Bach, exploratory testing is more a mindset or "...a way of thinking about testing" than a methodology. They also say that it crosses a continuum from slightly exploratory (slightly ambiguous or vaguely scripted testing) to highly exploratory (freestyle exploratory testing).

These are not meant to be non-overlapping categories of testing; rather, they are different ways of approaching the problem.

I don't know how ad-hoc testing is supposed to differ from exploratory testing.

I once tested a Windows client UI by randomly banging on the keyboard while my coworker randomly moved and clicked the mouse. I found bugs that way, and I could reproduce them, but (at least initially) I couldn't tell you the exact set of keystrokes and mouse clicks that triggered the problem. That is monkey testing.

Exploratory testing is testing without a script or a predefined set of test cases. Perhaps the main idea about exploratory testing is that it is possible (and productive) to start testing with an ambiguous or loosely-defined goal. Wikipedia says this about exploratory testing:

According to Cem Kaner & James Marcus Bach, exploratory testing is more a mindset or "...a way of thinking about testing" than a methodology. They also say that it crosses a continuum from slightly exploratory (slightly ambiguous or vaguely scripted testing) to highly exploratory (freestyle exploratory testing).

These are not meant to be non-overlapping categories of testing; rather, they are different ways of approaching the problem.

I don't know how ad-hoc testing is supposed to differ from exploratory testing.

1
source | link

I once tested a Window client UI by randomly banging on the keyboard while my coworker randomly moved and clicked the mouse. I found bugs that way, and I could reproduce them, but (at least initially) I couldn't tell you the exact set of keystrokes and mouse clicks that triggered the problem. That is monkey testing.

Exploratory testing is testing without a script or a predefined set of test cases. Perhaps the main idea about exploratory testing is that it is possible (and productive) to start testing with an ambiguous or loosely-defined goal. Wikipedia says this about exploratory testing:

According to Cem Kaner & James Marcus Bach, exploratory testing is more a mindset or "...a way of thinking about testing" than a methodology. They also say that it crosses a continuum from slightly exploratory (slightly ambiguous or vaguely scripted testing) to highly exploratory (freestyle exploratory testing).

These are not meant to be non-overlapping categories of testing; rather, they are different ways of approaching the problem.

I don't know how ad-hoc testing is supposed to differ from exploratory testing.