tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7722108.post1823291476164494196..comments2024-03-28T12:11:07.539+05:30Comments on Thinking Tester: Patterns in weakness in approaches about testingShrini Kulkarnihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10782753752478547381noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7722108.post-88194214594207636322012-08-30T11:35:17.550+05:302012-08-30T11:35:17.550+05:30There are various loop wholes in testing and somet...There are various loop wholes in testing and sometime it has not been taken seriously to impplement at each phase of SDLC life cycle. Testing results better if performed at each stage of development.<br /><a href="http://www.360logica.com/" rel="nofollow">360logica</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07382360897939212144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7722108.post-25222509739149916542012-03-19T12:48:03.049+05:302012-03-19T12:48:03.049+05:30I agree with your points.
I also like to add that...I agree with your points.<br /><br />I also like to add that very few tester's shows willingness to learn, read or try to experiment new...<br /><br />Very good post :-)Savitahttp://savitamunde.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7722108.post-39893031563762076512012-03-19T04:29:42.876+05:302012-03-19T04:29:42.876+05:30Your viewpoints on testing are quite interesting. ...Your viewpoints on testing are quite interesting. Sure software testing, viewed with other paradigms needs to be taken with a grain of salt. And, with agile development methods, some think there is no need for formal testing, just let the developers and testers work together, and test as they go, do the sprint, and if it comes out the other end 'working', then that's good enough. However, the goal is quality, not 'good testing', so quality should be baked into the product from the organization's mindset. That means defining, identifying, and measuring 'defects' that occur in the entire product development process. Defects occur outside of development and testing. And from the customer's viewpoint, their thinking on quality goes far beyond the realm of zero defect software. Even if the software has no bugs, it can still be 'bad quality' right? The reason is that quality comes from more than the software (working or not working). Quality and hence defects can be in sales, requirements, as well as customer service. So 'testing' in these areas must be done as well. The difference it that the defects are just outside the realm of what we normally think of as defects.Philhttp://www.xbosoft.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7722108.post-69093204714199861782012-03-05T07:00:05.312+05:302012-03-05T07:00:05.312+05:30@Nguyen
>>> I'm even more curious ab...@Nguyen<br /><br />>>> I'm even more curious about your response to each of those "notions", which I have to say I can see some truth in them. Do you plan to have a follow-up post?<br /><br />Writing a followup post is a good idea. I do have my responses to each of these patterns.<br /><br />You make an interesting point about "truth" in these notions. These are patterns of weaknesses - when you connect weakness to truth, they dont quite match up. We might be talking about different perspectives and point of views here.<br /><br />Let us wait for my "responses" post.<br /><br />Thanks for commenting<br /><br />ShriniShrini Kulkarnihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10782753752478547381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7722108.post-27607030102722801782012-03-05T06:56:30.743+05:302012-03-05T06:56:30.743+05:30>>>> If you see the job requirement of...>>>> If you see the job requirement of a tester in the prestigious product development companies like MS,Yahoo,Google or Amazon etc the most sought after skill-sets are automation,scripting not human(manual) testers.<br /><br />This has been going for a while now. Historically programmers did all "testing" that needs to be done. But there were testers along the side as well. They did testing but also were very programmer friendly. Their universe was about testing that used automation as tool not as only means about testing.<br /><br />It is very disappointing to see folks in the companies very sadly equate testing to /only/ writing code.<br /><br />Is it a time to (re)define what (manual) testing?<br /><br />ShriniShrini Kulkarnihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10782753752478547381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7722108.post-65177814740043938382012-03-02T23:28:23.224+05:302012-03-02T23:28:23.224+05:30Great post, Shrini. I'm even more curious abo...Great post, Shrini. I'm even more curious about your response to each of those "notions", which I have to say I can see some truth in them. Do you plan to have a follow-up post?Buu Nguyenhttp://www.qasymphony.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7722108.post-78023271169275137752012-03-02T23:26:50.759+05:302012-03-02T23:26:50.759+05:30Great post, Shrini. I'm even more curious abo...Great post, Shrini. I'm even more curious about your response to each of those "notions", which I can see some truth in them. Do you plan to have a follow-up post?Buu Nguyenhttp://www.qasymphony.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7722108.post-66584912590189497472012-03-01T23:16:48.422+05:302012-03-01T23:16:48.422+05:30I agree on almost all of the points. The mindset t...I agree on almost all of the points. The mindset towards testing on its usefulness is the biggest risk for testers and testing community than anything else. <br />Like recently I had read(and couldn't help writing a post in my blog) Facebook has no dedicated testers. If you see the job requirement of a tester in the prestigious product development companies like MS,Yahoo,Google or Amazon etc the most sought after skill-sets are automation,scripting not human(manual) testers.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11646589222956618746noreply@blogger.com