NVP Software Solutions

Tag: software testing

  • System Boundary Diagram

    System Boundary Diagrams sometimes come up in the context of a Use Case and sometimes in the context of Software Testing. Either way they are a useful in the effort expended when determining what to test. While the ‘normal’ System Boundary Diagram shows the boundaries of the system and thus the boundaries of the testing, we try to use it only as a starting point for other diagrams that may also aid in defining the testing effort and scope. (more…)

  • How Do We Train Software Testers?

    Software tester training is something that appears to require a lot more attention, given the number of conversations we have on a regular basis. We get a surprising number of questions about software tester training and plans, so we’ve dedicated our next blog series on how to train software testers. (more…)

  • Testing Sources of Information

    Sources of information for testing tend to come from two extremes. In some cases you may have almost no information and find it difficult to start. In other cases you may have far too much information and not know what to do with it all or where to start or stop reading. The ‘happy medium’ or ‘just right’ amount is rarely the case when it comes to testing sources of information. (more…)

  • Why Test Training

    Test training is something that should be a ‘given’ and not something that a blog series should be devoted to. However, we get a surprising number of questions about test training and plans, that we thought we’d address a few of them here. So why train testers? You may recall that we defined three broad categories a couple of weeks ago in the blog. (more…)

  • The Out-of-Scope of Testing

    The Out-of-Scope of Testing has only one definition (unlike the Scope of Testing) but it is much harder to document. We want to list everything we are not planning to test! However, the inevitable question is how far to go with our list. Obviously we are not going to list everything we are not going to test and we cannot simply say that everything that is not in-scope is out-of-scope (tempting as that may be).

    The (not entirely rhetorical) questions you will get asked include the following:

    1. Are you planning to omit that from your testing? (should be included)
    2. What made you think that isn’t part of this project? (should also be included)
    3. There is too much risk to avoid testing that.

    The danger with listing out-of-scope items is that they remind people of other items and they then start to think about the risk of avoiding testing that item. You start to get scope creep on your testing and since it is not part of the plan you start to get schedule slippage and cost escalation. Very few people will tell you to test less – it is too risky to state that.

    Whatever your policy; the following will guide the creation of the out-of-scope list:

    1. What can we avoid testing?
    2. What will simply not be able to be completed within budget and resource constraints?
    3. What is the best use of the resources?

    Make sure to document the out-of-scope up front and get it signed off. That will reduce the problems later on and create a much more harmonious working relationship.

    One of the best methods is to build a System Boundary Diagram and let that drive the Scope of testing. Not only does it clarify the thoughts of everyone in the project, it is very effective way of conveying the scope and out-of-scope pieces of the project.

    In general we try to test the interfaces of the System Boundary diagram but avoid full testing of the items outside the System Boundary Diagram. Those are out-of-scope.

    Discussion Questions

    1. Do you define your Out-of-Scope of Testing?
    2. Has it been disputed?
    3. What would you have done differently based on what you know now?

    Next Week: Training

  • Scope of Testing

    The Scope of Testing may relate to how much testing we are going to do or it may relate to how much of the system we are planning to test. The amount of testing could be defined as doing multiple phases of testing with differing aims. The amount of the system we are planning to test and actually do test can be measured by a coverage tool. These two definitions are not independent of each other. Regardless of which definition you decide to use, Be Prepared for some arguing.

    The (not entirely rhetorical) questions you will get asked include the following:

    1. You are planning on how much testing? (too much or too little)
    2. What makes you think that is enough testing? (too little)
    3. You are planning on testing that? (should be included or should not be included)
    4. On what did you base that estimate or expectation?

    The questions can go on like that for ages. I have one client who does not want any errors in production. Their mantra is everything is in scope and test as much as you can. They are no more successful than any one else and sometimes less so.

    Whatever your policy; the following will guide the creation of the scope:

    1. What must be tested?
    2. What can be tested (within budget and time constraints)?
    3. What is the best use of the resources?

    Make sure to document the scope up front and get it signed off. That will reduce the problems later on and create a much more harmonious working relationship.

    Of course, once we have done the scope, then we need to define the Out of Scope. More arguments are on the way! Incidentally Out of Scope is not Everything not In Scope. It must be specified.

    Discussion Questions

    1. Do you define your Scope of Testing?
    2. Has it been disputed?
    3. What would you have done differently based on what you know now?

    Next Week: Training

  • Test Conditions

    Test Conditions is a term that has multiple definitions. For the sake of this blog, we are going to define them as the equivalent of (Low Level) Test Objectives and state that they are One-Line statements of what is going to be tested. (High level Test Objectives may relate to more system level objectives and some of them may be derived from the Project Charter or plan.)

    For example, the Test Conditions may read as follows:

    1. Test that the system calculates interest correctly.
    2. Verify that the design allows for 100 simultaneous connections.
    3. Validate that the user interface is accessible according to the corporate standards.

    The question that frequently arises is why bother to write these Test Conditions? It seems like an extra step with minimal return. Why not just go directly to the Test Cases?

    We use them for a number of reasons.

    1. They allow the tester to consider the entire system rather than getting into detailed test cases at the first step.
    2. They allow other stakeholders to review the test coverage without having to read through full test cases.
    3. They can identify coverage and omissions in coverage with limited effort.
    4. They allow for estimation of the number of test cases that will be needed before the testcases are written.
    5. They allow for estimation of the test effort early in the project.
    6. They can help identify the components of the test environment earlier allowing it to be specified and built before it is needed.
    7. They determine the required test data and allow it to be gathered and made ready before testing starts.

    We have found that the effort in building test conditions is more than paid back in early information and helpful triggers for what needs to be done.

    Discussion Questions

    1. Do you write Test Conditions or Test Objectives?
    2. Were they beneficial to the project?
    3. What would you have done differently based on what you know now?

    Next Week: Process Improvement – Deal with Results

  • How interactive prototyping can improve QA in the SDLC

    It’s often said that quality must be built in, not added on. But when it comes to the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC), the reverse often happens: defects are identified late on in the Testing Phase, after coding is done. This means bugs are expensive to fix and solutions are found last-minute, putting quality at risk. Early Lifecycle QA, from requirements definition onward, results in a better software development experience and, hopefully, a better end product.

    But even when Early Lifecycle QA does happen, it’s not always plain sailing: business requirements documents are often scanty and don’t provide QA professionals with enough information; other stakeholders may be resistant to QA specialists coming in and “telling them their job” at the review stage; some requirements are untestable thanks to lack of clarity. And of course things change throughout any project, it’s a fact. Flexibility is a must.

    So how can QA professionals ensure that they can get involved and be effective from the outset of the SDLC and throughout it? Step up interactive prototyping. Using an interactive prototyping tool can facilitate early stage QA and avoid common pain points.

    Requirements definition and gathering

    QA specialists sometimes receive little information on which to base tests at this stage, thanks to paltry requirements or incomprehensible Business Requirements Documentation (BRD). Additionally, QAs are often sent the documentation too late, meaning there’s no time to set up adequate tests. By gathering, defining and gathering requirements using a prototyping tool – requirements can be imported or created directly in the prototype, and all invited stakeholders (including QAs) can add or comment upon those requirements in real-time. Once you have the baseline of requirements, a System Testing Plan can be finalized.

    Interactive requirements and iterative process

    Once the BRD and System Requirements Specification are agreed upon, the QA team can set about reviewing requirements in the prototype. Running user test cases with a designated User Proxy – someone who takes on the role of User – will allow QA to be approached from 3 angles: functional, structural and conformance. All QA team members can add to and edit the BRD in the prototype, ensuring that user and system needs are accurately represented at this early stage.

    Using a prototyping tool to facilitate this process reduces time and budget concerns for project managers, which means they are more likely to agree to incorporating QA teams early on.

    Design and QA

    With a version history of requirements accessible within the prototype, the design team has a clear map to work off. They can build an interactive prototype based on the validated requirements, linking each feature to its relevant requirement and thereby facilitating QA testing. Once the design team has produced a high fidelity prototype, activities such as verifying system architecture and carrying out system audits can be done on the prototype. Finding and fixing bugs through prototype testing is a lot cheaper than fixing them in the code.

    Coding and Deployment

    Later SDLC stages can now go ahead, with the QA team carrying out coding-related Quality Assurance activities such as verifying implementation of top requirements, and checking the quality of code with Product Quality Analyzer tools.

    Key Success Markers

    Early Lifecycle Quality Assurance requires collaboration between teams and a shared vision, factors supported by the inclusion of interactive prototyping in the SDLC. By prioritizing Early Lifecycle QA rework and costs are reduced, QA input is incorporated at every stage of the project, and time to market is optimized.

    Justinmind is a prototyping tool for web and mobile applications that allows you to visualize your software solution before starting development