|
| SeleniumWiki |
| Visit this group |
Is there a difference in testing a product and testing an application, from Automation Testing standpoint. Testing fundamentally means determining if the object under test operates in a way that meets specifications.
Web sites are essentially client/server applications – with web servers and ‘browser’ clients. Consideration should be given to the interactions between html pages, TCP/IP communications, Internet connections, firewalls, applications that run in web pages (such as applets, javascript, plug-in applications), and applications that run on the server side (such as cgi scripts, database interfaces, logging applications, dynamic page generators, asp, etc.). Additionally, there are a wide variety of servers and browsers, various versions of each, small but sometimes significant differences between them, variations in connection speeds, rapidly changing technologies, and multiple standards and protocols. The end result is that testing for web sites can become a major ongoing effort.
Client/server applications can be quite complex due to the multiple dependencies among clients, data communications, hardware, and servers. Thus testing requirements can be extensive. When time is limited (as it usually is) the focus should be on integration and system testing. Additionally, load/stress/performance testing may be useful in determining client/server application limitations and capabilities. There are commercial tools to assist with such testing.
By implementing QA processes slowly over time, using consensus to reach agreement on processes, and adjusting and experimenting as an organization grows and matures, productivity will be improved instead of stifled. Problem prevention will lessen the need for problem detection, panics and burn-out will decrease, and there will be improved focus and less wasted effort.
It may take serious effort to determine if an application has significant unexpected or hidden functionality, and it would indicate deeper problems in the software development process. If the functionality isn’t necessary to the purpose of the application, it should be removed, as it may have unknown impacts or dependencies that were not taken into account by the designer or the customer.
A common problem and a major headache.
• Work with the project’s stakeholders early on to understand how requirements might change so that alternate test plans and strategies can be worked out in advance, if possible.
• It’s helpful if the application’s initial design allows for some adaptability so that later changes do not require redoing the application from scratch.
• If the code is well-commented and well-documented this makes changes easier for the developers.
• Use rapid prototyping whenever possible to help customers feel sure of their requirements and minimize changes.
• The project’s initial schedule should allow for some extra time commensurate with the possibility of changes.
• Try to move new requirements to a ‘Phase 2′ version of an application, while using the original requirements for the ‘Phase 1′ version.
• Negotiate to allow only easily-implemented new requirements into the project, while moving more difficult new requirements into future versions of the application.
• Be sure that customers and management understand the scheduling impacts, inherent risks, and costs of significant requirements changes. Then let management or the customers (not the developers or testers) decide if the changes are warranted – after all, that’s their job.
• Balance the effort put into setting up automated testing with the expected effort required to re-do them to deal with changes.
• Try to design some flexibility into automated test scripts.
• Focus initial automated testing on application aspects that are most likely to remain unchanged.
• Devote appropriate effort to risk analysis of changes to minimize regression testing needs.
• Design some flexibility into test cases (this is not easily done; the best bet might be to minimize the detail in the test cases, or set up only higher-level generic-type test plans)
• Focus less on detailed test plans and test cases and more on ad hoc testing (with an understanding of the added risk that this entails).
