Read this bug report for Mozilla Browser ---
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154589
What makes this bug report a special example ...
1. Clearly explains the background of a bug - with example
2. Makes a strong case for Why bug is important from user perspective .
3. Persuasive enough for a stakeholder press for fix.
4. Examples of other sources that give references.
As Cem Kaner puts it -- a good bug always makes developers to fix it. If you have managed to draw attention of developers, PM and other stake holders - you have made a strong beginning - make the bug report look appealing
BTW, bugzilla.mozilla.org is a best place to learn
0. It is an open Bug database -- A huge knowledge repository.
1. Good bug reports - look for bug patterns - learn from them.
2. Know about security Vulnerabilities and Brower issues.
3. Learn and brush fundamentals of Web and standards that make "Internet"
Shrini
A Tester driven by curiosity and relentless question "what if"
"My vote for the World’s Most Inquisitive Tester is Shrini Kulkarni" - James Bach
My LinkedIn Profile : http://www.linkedin.com/in/shrinik
For views, feedback - do mail me at shrinik@gmail.com
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Test Automation - Takes toll of Microsoft Testers ....
I read this old story (Reported by Seattle times in and around Jan 2004) about Microsoft Laying off 62 Testers in Windows group.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoft/2002155249_mslayoffs20.html
Because (as reported by Seattle times - www.seatletimes.com)
1. They had automation so testers not required.
2. They need to cut cost - either send jobs to India (low cost option) or aggressively automate...
It is pretty sad to note that a company like Microsoft (I am an ex-Microsoftee) is taking step like this. Conventional wisdom and all classical/contemporary literature on Test automation makes it clear that "automation cannot replace human beings and human part of testing". I am at loss to understand why Microsoft (some groups in MS) thought that automation can replace Testers.
This is a story published about more than year ago and is not an official communication from the Redmond based Software giant.
But The Seattle Times, being the largest daily newspaper in Washington state and the largest Sunday newspaper in the Northwest. Well respected for its comprehensive local coverage, The Seattle Times, winner of seven Pulitzer Prizes, is also recognized nationally and internationally for in-depth, quality reporting and award-winning photography and design.
I am afraid it sends wrong signal -- Microsoft should have (might have) done something to set this right...
Anyone listening?
Shrini
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoft/2002155249_mslayoffs20.html
Because (as reported by Seattle times - www.seatletimes.com)
1. They had automation so testers not required.
2. They need to cut cost - either send jobs to India (low cost option) or aggressively automate...
It is pretty sad to note that a company like Microsoft (I am an ex-Microsoftee) is taking step like this. Conventional wisdom and all classical/contemporary literature on Test automation makes it clear that "automation cannot replace human beings and human part of testing". I am at loss to understand why Microsoft (some groups in MS) thought that automation can replace Testers.
This is a story published about more than year ago and is not an official communication from the Redmond based Software giant.
But The Seattle Times, being the largest daily newspaper in Washington state and the largest Sunday newspaper in the Northwest. Well respected for its comprehensive local coverage, The Seattle Times, winner of seven Pulitzer Prizes, is also recognized nationally and internationally for in-depth, quality reporting and award-winning photography and design.
I am afraid it sends wrong signal -- Microsoft should have (might have) done something to set this right...
Anyone listening?
Shrini
James Bach on automation ...
James bach has posted following blog post on Manual Tests and automation.
http://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/58
It is prety interesting stuff. Read the post and my comments on that post.
Especially Rules of Automation as per James
Test Automation Rule #1: A good manual test cannot be automated.
Rule #1B: If you can truly automate a manual test, it couldn’t have been a good manual test.
Rule #1C: If you have a great automated test, it’s not the same as the manual test that you believe you were automating.
Note the comments chain for that blog post --- Really thought provoking
More on this later ...
Shrini
http://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/58
It is prety interesting stuff. Read the post and my comments on that post.
Especially Rules of Automation as per James
Test Automation Rule #1: A good manual test cannot be automated.
Rule #1B: If you can truly automate a manual test, it couldn’t have been a good manual test.
Rule #1C: If you have a great automated test, it’s not the same as the manual test that you believe you were automating.
Note the comments chain for that blog post --- Really thought provoking
More on this later ...
Shrini
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)