Timeline for Should A Formal Test Plan For Dynamic String Testing Include All Combinations?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 5, 2020 at 10:27 | comment | added | Joe Strazzere | @MasterJoe - I've never conducted nor experienced a QA interview that obsessed over hard data structure or algorithms. | |
| Aug 5, 2020 at 7:26 | comment | added | MasterJoe | @JoeStrazzere - Side note. I wonder why most QA job interviews obsess over hard data structure and algorithm problems when the job will never require that level of problem solving ? There is literally no mention about standard testing techniques like all pairs. Its good if the candidate is at least aware of the existence of such techniques, even though they might not remember all the details. It saves people a lot of time at work. I guess interviewers are often testing the wrong thing in candidates. | |
| Feb 9, 2013 at 13:25 | comment | added | Joe Strazzere | Thanks, BJ. The language I was using was a bit casual. Here are some papers that present the thoughts more formally: testingeducation.org/wtst5/PairwisePNSQC2004.pdf csrc.nist.gov/groups/SNS/acts/documents/… | |
| Feb 8, 2013 at 22:55 | comment | added | Bj Rollison | Joe, the "research" on random combinations is a random selection from all possible combinations, and not simply randomly selecting combinations and how the random selections are performed is also a factor. In general, a well-known combinatorial tool such as Hexawise, PICT, ACTS, etc. is a more viable solution in this case. I would also recommend reading csrc.nist.gov/groups/SNS/acts/Crosstalk0806KuhnLeiKacker.pdf | |
| Feb 8, 2013 at 22:09 | comment | added | user246 | If nothing slee, contemplating an allpairs strategy forces you to think about how variables related to each other: which are independent, which are dependent, and so on. Even if you eventually choose not to use allpairs, the analysis will help you to make smarter decisions about how you test. | |
| Feb 8, 2013 at 21:04 | comment | added | allquixotic | It depends on what I can convince my coworkers to do :) Maybe we'll do exhaustive testing for 1 to 3 variables, allpairs for 4 to 10, and random spot checks for more than 10? I don't know. We'll have to try it out. But the conceptual introduction of allpairs into my brain is a huge contribution to my knowledge and development as a software tester. | |
| Feb 8, 2013 at 20:56 | comment | added | Joe Strazzere | You are welcome! Remember, the fact that it is sufficient to rely on just pairs (rather than just singles or higher multiples) is an assumption we make when we choose that path. You might want to validate that assumption for your particular context. | |
| Feb 8, 2013 at 20:29 | vote | accept | allquixotic | ||
| Feb 8, 2013 at 20:21 | comment | added | allquixotic | Very detailed answer, thanks -- I had no idea that "allpairs" existed! In one of my real-life examples, I was able to take a truth table of 16 conditions down to 10 by eliminating impossible situations (sometimes the predicates are made up of conjunctions or other boolean logic that would lead to a contradiction), then down to 6 by using the allpairs tool to eliminate a few combinations. No, they aren't life-critical, but will lead to user confusion or support calls if it's wrong. | |
| Feb 8, 2013 at 19:57 | history | answered | Joe Strazzere | CC BY-SA 3.0 |