Exploratory testing
Chance-based testing
Submitted by Ainars Galvans on Mon, 12/01/2009 - 16:59. context-driven testing | exploratory testing“How can we maximize the chance of finding such a problem in the limited time we have to test?”
“I was lucky enough in my random selection of order for retesting the fixes that the system was in a state for me to get some simple extra tests in for the previous feature.”Casinos makes money on roulette because they knows statistics. Testing is not as random as dice roll, but we could make a few conclusions if we analyze statistics. One of the conclusions that I make is following: it makes a lot of sense to vary tests (minefield analogy) when we do it first few times. But as we do regression again and again the effect is lost.
Do you write test cases to kill time?
Submitted by Ainars Galvans on Mon, 08/12/2008 - 10:52. exploratory testingCould a novice tester do Exploratory Testing?
Submitted by Ainars Galvans on Tue, 04/11/2008 - 18:01. exploratory testingET thoughts: The Seeker (CKA) heuristic
Submitted by Erik Petersen on Sun, 20/04/2008 - 07:53. exploratory testing | heuristicsSome people are more into mnemonics than others. I can recall walking along with James Lyndsay one day. This in itself was unusual because we are normally on opposite sides of the earth. We were discussing how there are many great mnemonics for test ideas, but neither of us was able to recall the items, just the mnemonics! I think this strongly influences our exploratory testing approaches. Alan Richardson has blogged about this here . Because it is general, It doesn’t really need a mnemonic, but I will give it an acronym. Seeker, CKA, Challenge Key Assumptions. While any tester can do this, the experienced tester will be more skilled at identifying key assumptions, and be more effective at using it. If you have less experience, or can remember mnemonics (!), maybe try the standard ones! You’ll find some links by searching for “test ideas” at my testingspot.net site
Discovery vs. Confirmation
Submitted by Antony Marcano on Sat, 29/03/2008 - 07:44. exploratory testing | perspectives | test driven developmentWhen I hear debates about scripted vs. exploratory testing... or even debates such as "automate all tests" vs. "you can't automate all tests"... I don't think I'm hearing the real debate.
I think the debate that I'm hearing is "testing is about confirmation" vs. "testing is about discovery".
This distinction in the underlying intent of a given approach seems to not be emphasised in these discussions.
In simple terms, I think of the intent behind testing as having two facets:
- Confirmation - Does the system do what we anticipated it should do?
- Discovery - Does the system do (or not do) anything we did not anticipate it would (or should do)?
Ad-hoc vs. Exploratory Testing
Submitted by Antony Marcano on Wed, 12/03/2008 - 13:47. exploratory testingAd-hoc testing in comparison to exploratory testing is like the difference between someone who only runs when they are late for their train and a professional athlete that competes in 100 metre sprints.
The person that runs for the bus simply runs instinctively - yet the professional athlete, with the sports-science consultant, studies ways to optimise their running, trains and practices to improve both their power and technique (such as with the Pose method).
The minute you even read about exploratory testing, you are stepping away from ad-hoc (having a play) testing. The mere fact that you appreciate that it isn't only instinctive but realise that there is a method to what may at a glance seem easy to do is the day you are no longer just "having a play".
Do you keep notes about “the first below the line” tests?
Submitted by Ainars Galvans on Tue, 12/02/2008 - 16:25. exploratory testingHow do I know when I'm done... (again)
Submitted by Antony Marcano on Wed, 06/02/2008 - 18:08. exploratory testing | extreme programming (XP)That sweet check-in...
