My friend Pradeep Srajan made a comment few days back "The test doesn't find the bug. A human finds the bug, and the test plays a role in helping the human find it."
A pretty thought that I agree with .........As I believe that a test only becomes an instrument in hands of a human.
Some points to ponder .......
- The first set of tests are created by humans on their interpretation of the requirements
- The tests generated will be towards both positive as well as negetive testing
- The first set of goof ups can start from here itself .......if the tester has not understood the requirements clearly and cannot identify the positive and negetive test sets
- The test set maynot always be exhaustive in nature
These are just the start points for testing.
But what is important to think is that can we accept the fact "to err is human" in the testing community ?
Posts
5 comments:
IF a person slips into the shoes fo a tester, he needs to convicted that every error will have an effect, some has an adverse effect.
Even if thin ks err is human, the concerned person should be apprised of it and the impact of having it in the system.
'To err is human'
Great after all we are the people who produce errors.
Thanks ! :)
if the tester has understood the requirements clearly and identify the positive and negative test sets
&
The test set too exhaustive in nature -
If this situation continues, do u feel it is good start point for testing ???Is tat possible to produce bug free software product ??
I am not sure what you understand / perceive as "exhaustive". It’s a very subjective term unless you define your boundaries around it.
If you have understood the requirements clearly and identified the positive and negative test sets. It makes sense to say "it is good start point for testing".
But cannot have a generic claim that THIS approach will lead to "bug free software product".
Post a Comment