NVP Software Solutions

Author: Neil

  • Review of the Year – Manual Testing

    Review of the Year – Manual Testing

    Manual Testing is something that seems to be on the minds of many Quality Assurance Managers and Test Leads. Usually they want out of the Manual Testing and view Automated Testing (Blog planned for next week) as the saviour of their budget and time constraints.

    However, judging by the vacant positions we get requests to fill, there is still no shortage of Manual Testing positions at least in our area. There are still a lot of requests for Manual Testers with business knowledge preferred and new software and startups still start with manual testing. We get requests for Automated Testing with specific tools usually requested and will discuss this next week.

    The part that seems to be missing from many of the requests and the subsequent position is any discussion of the How; What; Why; When; and If; of the manual testing.

    There seems to be limited thought given to How the testing is to be done apart from some vague request to build testcases and execute them.

    Little consideration is given to What to test and Why beyond the statement: “We need to test the software”.

    When and If are not such an issue: Yesterday and definitely are the one word answers to those questions.

    These answers certainly provide freedom for the tester to do what they want but that may not always align with all the stakeholder’s wishes and may be 180 degrees off in some cases.

    This leads to a poor ROI and a large waste of time and money.

    There will continue to be a market for manual testers for new changes and new applications that are not yet mainstream. We expect automation to take over many of the repetitive tasks (as has always been the case) The only open question at this stage might be what AI will do to the industry. That we cannot predict.

    Want to discuss the effectiveness of your Manual Testing further? Contact us.

  • QA with No time

    QA with No Time

    One of the constant issues that comes up in discussions or classes is the lack of time for Quality Assurance and Quality Control. We seem to be under constant time pressure and with Agile and DevOps it has become worse rather than better.

    While Quality Assurance cannot anticipate everything, the Continuous Improvement aspect can help improve the time considerations. The key is to prioritise and plan for the high priority items to be completed.

    Some people will say (with a fair amount of truth) that even planning for the priorities and only doing those high priority items will still not be possible in the time allotted for Quality Assurance and Quality Control. With development reacting to changing requirements from the users, constant upgrades in technology (both hardware and software) and impacts from other projects, the time scale can shrink radically.

    However, without a definitive list of what must be done and the risk of not completing attached, it is very hard to push back against the time pressure. With the list in hand, it is easier to quantify the risk of not doing something.

    Some people will say that they do not have the time to even create the list. They are under extreme pressure to start testing immediately and provide issues so the developers have something to handle now that they have finally delivered all the changes requested by the user. Our recommendation, in this case, is to simply make a list of the functions or requirements, assign High, Medium or Low to the risk of not testing that function or requirement and send it around for review. This will at least alert people to the challenges faced by Quality Assurance and Quality Control.

    Want to discuss your list further? Contact us.

  • A Better Way – Case Study 5 – Distributed with Poor Testing

    A Better Way – Case Study 5 – Distributed with Poor Testing

    In our last several blogs we have discussed ‘A Better Way to Test”.

    The issue is to apply this to actual situations. We have 5 Case Studies we plan to use over the next several weeks to address this. The fifth case study might be called “Distributed with Poor Testing”.

    In this case the developers were geographically remote, the Quality Assurance (such as it was) was local and the clients were geographically remote. This was a somewhat unusual situation since it is frequently the Quality Assurance that is remote and the other two local. However, some of the considerations had to be the same. We needed a way of communicating things without losing anything in transit.

    Two solutions came to mind immediately:

    1. Make sure there are stated expectations regarding the flow of information. This applies to any artifact like a test case, a requirement, a defect, or a design document. We did this via some flow charts we placed in the Master Test Plan although there are certainly other places they could have been recorded.
    2. Acquire some tools that will support this information store. There are many free or very cheap cloud-based tools that support these processes.

    Once we had the framework in place, we set up the appropriate loops and feedback mechanisms to ensure information flow and good quality. As time went on we expanded the groups who had access to the systems ensuring that the information flowed in the correct way and with sufficient security to the concerned parties. The two way flow of information allowed us to eliminate a backlog of defects that had accumulated and start addressing customer concerns in a timely manner.

    The investment was not large when compared to the improvements realised.

    If you want to discuss this further contact us.

  • A Better Way – Case Study 4 – Caught Between Vendor and Client!

    A Better Way – Case Study 3 – Test Plan in a Hurry!

    In our last several blogs we have discussed ‘A Better Way to Test”.

    The issue is to apply this to actual situations. We have 5 Case Studies we plan to use over the next several weeks to address this. The fourth case study might be called “Caught between Vendor and Client”.

    Although one could argue that Quality Assurance has always been caught between a Vendor or Vendors (developers) and possibly multiple clients (users), it has become a little more obvious and formal with the purchase of software from outside groups. This is not something that is going to go away. Assembly of a solution rather than building it has been around for quite a while and will probably become more frequent rather than less. The question is what Quality Assurance does to “Bridge the Gap” between what the client wants (‘perfection!’) and what the vendors are willing to supply in terms of proof given competitive secrets and possibly some Non-disclosure requirements.

    In our case (as discussed here) we built a plan that provided the final client with what they wanted. We then mapped what was supplied by the vendors against what was required and filled in the rest. Not surprisingly, the main items that were missing were Integration testing between what the various suppliers had provided and the type of testing that needed the entire system to be there including Performance, Security and Usability (to name a few).

    Bridging the gap in this fashion satisfied everyone and made use of everything that was already in place. That saved us a lot of time and allowed us to concentrate the tests that were critical to the client.

    If you want to discuss this further contact us.

  • November 2018 QA Events – Toronto and GTA

    NVP Software Solutions will be participating in the following software testing and quality assurance events happening this November in Ontario, Canada. The events are located in Toronto, Kitchener-Waterloo and London in the coming two weeks. Check out the relevant websites for more information and to register. This is a great opportunity to connect with other software testing and quality assurance professionals. We hope to see you there! (more…)

  • A Better Way – Case Study 3 – Test Plan in a Hurry!

    A Better Way – Case Study 3 – Test Plan in a Hurry!

    In our last several blogs we have discussed ‘A Better Way to Test”.

    The issue is to apply this to actual situations. We have 5 Case Studies we plan to use over the next several weeks to address this. The third case study might be called “Test Plan in a Hurry!”.

    This issue came up from an organisation that was part way through (as usual!) an engagement and suddenly required a test plan to satisfy the client. The request came from the Project Manager on Friday with a deadline of Monday afternoon. There was no prior exposure to the project; no knowledge that the request was coming; and very little in the way of Project Documentation (with certainly no time to review it). There was a temptation to ignore the request and had they not been an existing client, we might have been tempted to point out that this was not really an effective use of time. However, given the nature of the request and the people from whom it came, we went ahead with the attempt.

    Clearly, we were not going to get detailed testcases or test objectives based on what we had been given. So we opted for a process based Master Test Plan. In other words, we put together a statement of how the project would be tackled from a Quality Assurance point of view when the information became available. We put in processes for all the Quality Assurance items and highlighted the risks inherent in testing under these conditions (including the lack of any understanding of the project) and went forward with that. We put a strong emphasis on what was required now in order to make this work.

    If you want to discuss this further contact us.

  • A Better Way – Case Study 2 – Thinking Like the Client

    A Better Way – Case Study 2 – Thinking Like the Client

    In our last several blogs we have discussed ‘A Better Way to Test”.

    The issue is to apply this to actual situations. We have 5 Case Studies we plan to use over the next several weeks to address this. The second case study might be called “Thinking Like the Client”.

    Even though many in IT have embraced Agile in some form or another and with some level of success, not all clients are so willing. We find this particularly the case with larger, older and more safety or image conscious clients. They are not willing to take the risk of everything not coming together at the correct time. They are not willing to live with constant change. In addition, they often have milestones that need to be fulfilled and quite frequently they have stated contract deliverables that need to be fulfilled so that payments can be made.

    We received a call from the President of a development company with a large contract with probably the oldest, largest and most image conscious client you could get – the federal government. Even though the company had delivered projects successfully before and had a good record of coming through with what was required, the client still wanted a formal Test Plan completed.

    In our experience, the client is normally okay with a High Level Master Test Plan provided it contains the following (this is not an exhaustive list by any means):

    1. High Level Objectives
    2. A listing of the types of testing needed and the risk around each type
    3. Processes for Test Creation and signoff
    4. Processes for Defect tracking and resolution
    5. Methodologies for executing the testcases

    This reassures them that the developers have an understanding of what needs to be done.

    If you want to discuss this further contact us.

    Take a look at some of the seminars that we offer that address this situation and see if they apply to you. Testing can be better.
    Contact us for further information.

  • A Better Way – Case Study 1 – Thinking Outside the Box

    A Better Way – Case Study 1 – Thinking Outside the Box

    In our last several blogs we have discussed ‘A Better Way to Test”.

    The issue is to apply this to actual situations. We have 5 Case Studies we plan to use over the next several weeks to address this. The first one revolves around a junior QA, a very successful (small) company and a need to test effectively and quickly for a large final client. The issue that came up was the ability to “Think outside the box”.

    We received a call from the President of the company indicating that the new junior QA was having trouble considering things “Outside the box”. They were good with what was presented in the Use Cases or User Stories. Most people can generate testcases based on what is provided and the happy path from the Use Cases and User Stories. Experienced testers will apply other techniques and may specifically try Exploratory testing. However, you cannot explore or test what you don’t know or don’t think of at the time.

    Rather than dictating “Outside the box” which is a contradiction in itself, we decided to go with more of a checklist approach listing some of the areas that would be considered to be non-Happy Path and see if it could lead to further extensions. We did not dictate everything but started with more of a charter and guidance list to see what would come of it. The process had two advantages:

    1. We would have some coverage of everything “inside” and “outside” the box.
    2. We could use the results to evaluate the suitability of the junior QA for further roles and projects.

    The President came up with the basic list and ran it from there.

    If you want to discuss this further contact us.

    Take a look at some of the seminars that we offer that address this situation and see if they apply to you. Testing can be better.
    Contact us for further information.