Timely. Our new class in Software Testing (seminar course July '10) at MUM http://www.cs.mum.edu/courses/cs490/ just had a 7 group presentations the whole day today on several extended topics on software testing."antenna-gate" had also been one of the content of the exchanges yesterday.Unit testing is indeed cost effective. Prioritizing based on usage profile is also nice.Looking forward to the Risk Analysis tool, "Testify".Here's our group presentation material today. We just did it this week in addition to our whole day class lectures on Software Testing. http://bit.ly/cwep8SWe have one more week for this seminar course and it has been fun to develop a software testing mentality.Simplicio Gamboa IIIhttp://twitter.com/pinoystartup
Having tested Radio Frequency devices and having the dreaded recall hanging over your head. The integration testing of the software and hardware becomes an interesting problem.We would change the physical environment where the system was running. For example put the system in an oven and turn the heat up or generate high levels of static electricity. Then run our test suite under those conditions to ensure the system is working.One source of error we found was that as the tolerances of each component part was pushed to it's limit, you get some interesting cumulative effects that can cause some components to exceed their tolerances causing invalid signals in the system.
The news accounts about Apple's iPhone 4 antenna bug seem to ignore this key issue: Did Apple's QA and product testers know about the bug before, or after, GA product release? If Apple didn't know about the bug before product release, then Apple arguably made an innocent mistake because as you mention product testing is very difficult and nobody is perfect. However, if Apple did know about the bug before release, and as a business decision went ahead with it anyway, then perhaps Apple committed fraud.http://googcomments.blogspot.com
Another example why I hate people calling this profession "SW Testing",When you put the focus and expectations on the SW alone, and neglect to see that every SW must run on HW,Thus HW structure should be taken into account when planning the tests.And yes, I fully agree that every company has its glitches, if we look at Windows Mobile which still crash almost daily after over 10 years of improvements, and even Palm, which produces rather stable devices, had a glitch in almost every new product (luckily for them, they managed to fix these in following releases).Though they seem small - Smart phones are with very high complexity.Kobi Halperin------------------
That was indeed a very good read, James.Tester-(QA Manager),Deven B.
"Bugs like this make me sick when they are mine and nervous when they aren't." Truer words were never spoken.When a bug count is low after a test cycle, I know something is amiss.
Looking forward to the risk-analysis tool.
James, You still excite me. Wherever you are, with your material.- Hari.
It never ceases to amaze me how many project leaders start with "HOW TO DO IT" before they understand "WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE." I have over 20 years in the Quality Assurance/Testing area and believe that their is a fundamental problem with the lack of delivering testable requirements. If you understand what the client needs, you have a better chance for success.Or I am just kidding myself
As a web developer,you should not consider any bug very simple either it is in database part or in your coding part.You have to go through out whole. debugging to make your doubt clear.-quiz software
The comments you read and contribute here belong only to the person who posted them. We reserve the right to remove off-topic comments.