|
Sponsored Links: |
There are several schools of thought to the check scripts.Aversion to risk in industries such as defense and finance is a tendency to emphasize the scripts
tests before being executed. These industries are more concerned about the possible loss of the a application defect that the potential gain from the introduction of a new piece of application. As Consequently there is a strong emphasis on check preparation verifiable (although compliance with this check could be lip service!) and in some industries, external compliance issues (legal compliance, for example) means that a mandate to a script heavy approach.Moreover, for Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) application development, a loser approach is normally used. Since speed to market is more important than the risk of a single application defect, there is considerable scope in the approach to the check. Specific check cases can not be slightly documented or undocumented, and testers will be given great freedom in the way conduct their tests.The ultimate extension of this is the screening check or without a hyphen.In this type of testing, there is a considerable amount of preparation done, but the check cases are not pre-script. The tester uses his experience and a structured approach to "explore" the application and visual defects. They are free to pursue areas they believe are riskier than others.Scripts, it is argued, is a waste of time. In a massive project the amount of time devoted to scripts actually exceed the amount of time in implementation. If you have experience, education tester with the right set of tools and the right mindset, be more efficient and more profitable for them to reach the application immediately and find some flaws.This concept is very a heresy in some camps.I am somewhere in the midst of this debate.Preparation is essential. Some scripts are nice, but much is not. Screening tests based on nice testers and not without them. But a lot of time can be "wasted" in the methodologies of script
writing scripts that seldom found a flaw.I think 'screening tests' results better (think) testers heavy script methodologies. In the script of heavy methodologies, there is a tendency to believe that hard work is over when the script does. A monkey could run the script and find fault - this is a
dubious conclusion.But sometimes all they have are the monkeys and is a more efficient use of resources to permit your experienced testers to writing, and the use of apes to execute.In the finish, do not let the membership of a particular methodology, blind to the possibilities of other approaches. Train your testers at all possibilities and they will use at his trial.There is also an important legal aspect to this as Cem Kaner in his book "Testing Computer Application. "Whether you are responsible for the release of a piece of application that causes financial loss that may be responsible for damages. Also, if you can not prove to be conducted by diligence by appropriate evidence can be guilty of malpractice. Two of the objectives of check preparation therefore is to provide an audit trail showing the efforts made in verify the correct behavior of application.
Test Cases:
For the check case documents a check, intended to demonstrate a requirement.The relationship is not always one-on-one, in a check case is needed to show that seven requirement. Sometimes the same check case must be extrapolated in to plenty of screens, or plenty of workflows to verify a requirement. Must be at least seven check case for requirement however.Some methodologies (eg RUP) specify that it should be one check cases of obligation - a positive check case as well as a negative check case. A positive check case aims to demonstrate that the based check behaves as necessary with the correct input as well as a negative check is intended to demonstrate that the duties under the check causes a mistake with the incorrect entry (or responds thanks to that mistake).
This is where the debate on the script for what and what not, warm. If you were writing separately for each if not possible, it would script until the cows home.Consider a "birth date" field in a program application. You ought to only accept the "correct format"dates. But what is the correct format? It is probably possible to generalize this to the requirements of and come with a single check case which specifies all acceptable date formats.But what about the negative case? Can be extrapolated to all possible inputs and specify how the method should react? Possibly, but would last forever. To generalize, seven could basically say that the method should fail, and with input 'unacceptable'I tend to favor the approach that a positive check case involves a negative event.If your positive case also documents how the program is expected to handle exceptions, then covers both cases positive and negative cases. If the tests are well trained and educated Then try all possible input values in an attempt to cause an exception.In fact, the number of cases depends on the latitude you permit your testers.
Storing Test Cases:
There are a variety of ways to store check cases.The easiest way is in a word processing document in a spreadsheet.Two common form is a check script or TSM Matrix (also known as a traceability matrix). In a TSM each item represents a check case with the various elements of each case (see below)stored in columns. These can be nice for a small check work, as it is relatively easy to track and the execution of scripts in a spreadsheet, but in larger projects that are difficult to handle. The extent that actually aid traceability is also open to doubt, since no force change control and are not nice in one-to-many mappings.
In most of the development efforts of complex application or a database specialist check case management tools can be used. This has the advantage of applying a standard format and validation rules in the check content. It can also be used to record the execution of multiple check runs, produce reports and even help with traceability, linking back to the needs in a separate database. It You can also meet the exchange control and track the history of changes and implementation.
Elements of a Test Case:
The following table lists the items that a check case should include:
ITEM DESCRIPTION
Title A distinctive & descriptive title for the check case .The priority of the relative importance of check cases (critical, nice to have, etc) State of living systems, an indicator of the state of the check case.States typically might include:
Design - check case is still being designed
Ready - check case is complete, ready to run
Walking - check case is being executed
Pass - check case passed
Error - no check case
Error - check case is wrong & must be rewritten
The initial configuration of the program status before the actions of the "steps" to be followed.often this is not done & the reader must guess or intuit the correct prerequisites for conducting the check.Application configuration application configuration for this check is valid. It could include version & the version of application under check & any relevant hardware or details of the application platform (eg Win95 vs WinXP) Plaza of an ordered series of steps to perform during the check, they ought to be detailed & specific. The level of detail depends on the level of scripting necessary & experience of the examiner in query.The expectation that the expected behavior of application, following the steps? What is application is expected. Allows the check case for validation with the recourse to the verifier who wrote it.
No comments:
Post a Comment