Manual Testing

FAQ - 1            FAQ - 2            FAQ - 3

 What is 'Software Quality Assurance'?

 What is 'Software Testing'?
 What are some recent major computer system failures caused by software
bugs?
 Does every software project need testers?
 Why does software have bugs?
 How can new Software QA processes be introduced in an existing
organization?
 What is verification? validation?
 What is a 'walkthrough'?
 What's an 'inspection'?
 What kinds of testing should be considered?
 What are 5 common problems in the software development process?
 What are 5 common solutions to software development problems?
 What is software 'quality'?
 What is 'good code'?
 What is 'good design'?
 What is SEI? CMM? CMMI? ISO? Will it help?
 What is the 'software life cycle'?

Answers

FAQ- 2

 What makes a good Software Test engineer?

 What makes a good Software QA engineer?
 What makes a good QA or Test manager?
 What's the role of documentation in QA?
 What's the big deal about 'requirements'?
 What steps are needed to develop and run software tests?
 What's a 'test plan'?
 What's a 'test case'?
 What should be done after a bug is found?
 What is 'configuration management'?
 What if the software is so buggy it can't really be tested at all?
 How can it be known when to stop testing?
 What if there isn't enough time for thorough testing?
  What if the project isn't big enough to justify extensive testing?
 How does a client/server environment affect testing?
 How can World Wide Web sites be tested?
 How is testing affected by object-oriented designs?
 What is Extreme Programming and what's it got to do with testing?

Answers

FAQ - 3

 Why is it often hard for organizations to get serious about quality assurance?
 Who is responsible for risk management?
 Who should decide when software is ready to be released?
 What can be done if requirements are changing continuously?
 What if the application has functionality that wasn't in the requirements?
 How can QA processes be implemented without reducing productivity?
 What if an organization is growing so fast that fixed QA processes are
impossible?
 Will automated testing tools make testing easier?
 What's the best way to choose a test automation tool?
 How can it be determined if a test environment is appropriate?
 What's the best approach to software test estimation?
FAQ -1 Answers

1) Software QA involves the entire software development PROCESS - monitoring and

improving the process, making sure that any agreed-upon standards and procedures
are followed, and ensuring that problems are found and dealt with. It is oriented to
'prevention'.

2) Testing involves operation of a system or application under controlled conditions and

evaluating the results (eg, 'if the user is in interface A of the application while using
hardware B, and does C, then D should happen'). The controlled conditions should
include both normal and abnormal conditions. Testing should intentionally attempt to
make things go wrong to determine if things happen when they shouldn't or things don't
happen when they should. It is oriented to 'detection'.

 Organizations vary considerably in how they assign responsibility for QA and

testing. Sometimes they're the combined responsibility of one group or individual.
Also common are project teams that include a mix of testers and developers who
work closely together, with overall QA processes monitored by project managers.
It will depend on what best fits an organization's size and business structure.

3)  Some of the recently found problems are as follows:

 Software problems in a new software upgrade for farecards in a major urban

transit system reportedly resulted in a loss of a half million dollars before the
software was fixed, according to October 2010 news reports.
 In October of 2010 a large municipality's new web-based election voting
system was opened to the public for a testing period in which users were invited
to attempt to break it. Within a few days the site was penetrated by college
student hackers and its functionality altered.
 A smartphone online banking application was reported in July 2010 to have a
security bug affecting more than 100,000 customers. Users were able to upgrade
to a newer software version that fixed the problem.
 In July 2010 a major smartphone maker reported that their software contained
a long-time bug that resulted in incorrect indicators of signal strength in the
phone's interface. Reportedly customers had been complaining about the
 problem for several years. The company provided a fix for the problem several
weeks later.
 Email services of a major smartphone system were interrupted or unavailable
for nine hours in December 2009, the second service interruption within a week,
according to news reports. The problems were believed to be due to bugs in new
versions of the email system software.
 It was reported in August 2009 that a large suburban school district introduced
a new computer system that was 'plagued with bugs' and resulted in many
students starting the school year without schedules or with incorrect schedules,
and many problems with grades. Upset students and parents started a social
networking site for sharing complaints.
 In February of 2009 users of a major search engine site were prevented from
clicking through to sites listed in search results for part of a day. It was reportedly
due to software that did not effectively handle a mistakenly-placed "/" in an
internal ancillary reference file that was frequently updated for use by the search
engine. Users, instead of being able to click thru to listed sites, were instead
redirected to an intermediary site which, as a result of the suddenly enormous
load, was rendered unusable.
 A large health insurance company was reportedly banned by regulators from
selling certain types of insurance policies in January of 2009 due to ongoing
computer system problems that resulted in denial of coverage for needed
medications and mistaken overcharging or cancelation of benefits. The
regulatory agency was quoted as stating that the problems were posing "a
serious threat to the health and safety" of beneficiaries.
 A news report in January 2009 indicated that a major IT and management
consulting company was still battling years of problems in implementing its own
internal accounting systems, including a 2005 implementation that reportedly
"was attempted without adequate testing".
 In August of 2008 it was reported that more than 600 U.S. airline flights were
significantly delayed due to a software glitch in the U.S. FAA air traffic control
system. The problem was claimed to be a 'packet switch' that 'failed due to a
database mismatch', and occurred in the part of the system that handles required
flight plans.
 Software system problems at a large health insurance company in August
2008 were the cause of a privacy breach of personal health information for
several hundred thousand customers, according to news reports. It was claimed
that the problem was due to software that 'was not comprehensively tested'.
 A major clothing retailer was reportedly hit with significant software and system
problems when attempting to upgrade their online retailing systems in June 2008.
Problems remained ongoing for some time. When the company made their public
quarterly financial report, the software and system problems were claimed as the
cause of the poor financial results.
 Software problems in the automated baggage sorting system of a major airport
in February 2008 prevented thousands of passengers from checking baggage for
their flights. It was reported that the breakdown occurred during a software
upgrade, despite pre-testing of the software. The system continued to have
problems in subsequent months.
 News reports in December of 2007 indicated that significant software problems
were continuing to occur in a new ERP payroll system for a large urban school
system. It was believed that more than one third of employees had received
incorrect paychecks at various times since the new system went live the
preceding January, resulting in overpayments of $53 million, as well as
underpayments. An employees' union brought a lawsuit against the school
system, the cost of the ERP system was expected to rise by 40%, and the non-
payroll part of the ERP system was delayed. Inadequate testing reportedly
contributed to the problems. The school system was still working on cleaning up
the aftermath of the problems in December 2009, going so far as to bring
lawsuits against some employees to get them to return overpayments.
 In November of 2007 a regional government reportedly brought a multi-million
dollar lawsuit against a software services vendor, claiming that the vendor
'minimized quality' in delivering software for a large criminal justice information
system and the system did not meet requirements. The vendor also sued its
subcontractor on the project.
 In June of 2007 news reports claimed that software flaws in a popular online
stock-picking contest could be used to gain an unfair advantage in pursuit of the
game's large cash prizes. Outside investigators were called in and in July the
contest winner was announced. Reportedly the winner had previously been in 6th
place, indicating that the top 5 contestants may have been disqualified.
 A software problem contributed to a rail car fire in a major underground metro
system in April of 2007 according to newspaper accounts. The software
reportedly failed to perform as expected in detecting and preventing excess
power usage in equipment on new passenger rail cars, resulting in overheating
and fire in the rail car, and evacuation and shutdown of part of the system.
 Tens of thousands of medical devices were recalled in March of 2007 to
correct a software bug. According to news reports, the software would not
reliably indicate when available power to the device was too low.
 A September 2006 news report indicated problems with software utilized in a
state government's primary election, resulting in periodic unexpected rebooting of
voter checkin machines, which were separate from the electronic voting
machines, and resulted in confusion and delays at voting sites. The problem was
reportedly due to insufficient testing.
 In August of 2006 a U.S. government student loan service erroneously made
public the personal data of as many as 21,000 borrowers on it's web site, due to
a software error. The bug was fixed and the government department
 subsequently offered to arrange for free credit monitoring services for those
affected.
 A software error reportedly resulted in overbilling of up to several thousand
dollars to each of 11,000 customers of a major telecommunications company in
June of 2006. It was reported that the software bug was fixed within days, but
that correcting the billing errors would take much longer.
 News reports in May of 2006 described a multi-million dollar lawsuit settlement
paid by a healthcare software vendor to one of its customers. It was reported that
the customer claimed there were problems with the software they had contracted
for, including poor integration of software modules, and problems that resulted in
missing or incorrect data used by medical personnel.
 In early 2006 problems in a government's financial monitoring software
resulted in incorrect election candidate financial reports being made available to
the public. The government's election finance reporting web site had to be shut
down until the software was repaired.
 Trading on a major Asian stock exchange was brought to a halt in November
of 2005, reportedly due to an error in a system software upgrade. The problem
was rectified and trading resumed later the same day.
 A May 2005 newspaper article reported that a major hybrid car manufacturer
had to install a software fix on 20,000 vehicles due to problems with invalid
engine warning lights and occasional stalling. In the article, an automotive
software specialist indicated that the automobile industry spends $2 billion to $3
billion per year fixing software problems.
 Media reports in January of 2005 detailed severe problems with a $170 million
high-profile U.S. government IT systems project. Software testing was one of the
five major problem areas according to a report of the commission reviewing the
project. In March of 2005 it was decided to scrap the entire project.
 In July 2004 newspapers reported that a new government welfare
management system in Canada costing several hundred million dollars was
unable to handle a simple benefits rate increase after being put into live
operation. Reportedly the original contract allowed for only 6 weeks of
acceptance testing and the system was never tested for its ability to handle a
rate increase.
 Millions of bank accounts were impacted by errors due to installation of
inadequately tested software code in the transaction processing system of a
major North American bank, according to mid-2004 news reports. Articles about
the incident stated that it took two weeks to fix all the resulting errors, that
additional problems resulted when the incident drew a large number of e-mail
phishing attacks against the bank's customers, and that the total cost of the
incident could exceed $100 million.
 A bug in site management software utilized by companies with a significant
percentage of worldwide web traffic was reported in May of 2004. The bug
 resulted in performance problems for many of the sites simultaneously and
required disabling of the software until the bug was fixed.
 According to news reports in April of 2004, a software bug was determined to
be a major contributor to the 2003 Northeast blackout, the worst power system
failure in North American history. The failure involved loss of electrical power to
50 million customers, forced shutdown of 100 power plants, and economic losses
estimated at $6 billion. The bug was reportedly in one utility company's vendor-
supplied power monitoring and management system, which was unable to
correctly handle and report on an unusual confluence of initially localized events.
The error was found and corrected after examining millions of lines of code.
 In early 2004, news reports revealed the intentional use of a software bug as a
counter-espionage tool. According to the report, in the early 1980's one nation
surreptitiously allowed a hostile nation's espionage service to steal a version of
sophisticated industrial software that had intentionally-added flaws. This
eventually resulted in major industrial disruption in the country that used the
stolen flawed software.
 A major U.S. retailer was reportedly hit with a large government fine in October
of 2003 due to web site errors that enabled customers to view one anothers'
online orders.
 News stories in the fall of 2003 stated that a manufacturing company recalled
all their transportation products in order to fix a software problem causing
instability in certain circumstances. The company found and reported the bug
itself and initiated the recall procedure in which a software upgrade fixed the
problems.
 In August of 2003 a U.S. court ruled that a lawsuit against a large online
brokerage company could proceed; the lawsuit reportedly involved claims that
the company was not fixing system problems that sometimes resulted in failed
stock trades, based on the experiences of 4 plaintiffs during an 8-month period. A
previous lower court's ruling that "...six miscues out of more than 400 trades does
not indicate negligence." was invalidated.
 In April of 2003 it was announced that a large student loan company in the
U.S. made a software error in calculating the monthly payments on 800,000
loans. Although borrowers were to be notified of an increase in their required
payments, the company will still reportedly lose $8 million in interest. The error
was uncovered when borrowers began reporting inconsistencies in their bills.
 News reports in February of 2003 revealed that the U.S. Treasury Department
mailed 50,000 Social Security checks without any beneficiary names. A
spokesperson indicated that the missing names were due to an error in a
software change. Replacement checks were subsequently mailed out with the
problem corrected, and recipients were then able to cash their Social Security
checks.
 In March of 2002 it was reported that software bugs in Britain's national tax
system resulted in more than 100,000 erroneous tax overcharges. The problem
was partly attributed to the difficulty of testing the integration of multiple systems.
 A newspaper columnist reported in July 2001 that a serious flaw was found in
off-the-shelf software that had long been used in systems for tracking certain
U.S. nuclear materials. The same software had been recently donated to another
country to be used in tracking their own nuclear materials, and it was not until
scientists in that country discovered the problem, and shared the information,
that U.S. officials became aware of the problems.
 According to newspaper stories in mid-2001, a major systems development
contractor was fired and sued over problems with a large retirement plan
management system. According to the reports, the client claimed that system
deliveries were late, the software had excessive defects, and it caused other
systems to crash.
 In January of 2001 newspapers reported that a major European railroad was
hit by the aftereffects of the Y2K bug. The company found that many of their
newer trains would not run due to their inability to recognize the date
'31/12/2000'; the trains were started by altering the control system's date
settings.
 News reports in September of 2000 told of a software vendor settling a lawsuit
with a large mortgage lender; the vendor had reportedly delivered an online
mortgage processing system that did not meet specifications, was delivered late,
and didn't work.
 In early 2000, major problems were reported with a new computer system in a
large suburban U.S. public school district with 100,000+ students; problems
included 10,000 erroneous report cards and students left stranded by failed class
registration systems; the district's CIO was fired. The school district decided to
reinstate it's original 25-year old system for at least a year until the bugs were
worked out of the new system by the software vendors.
 A review board concluded that the NASA Mars Polar Lander failed in
December 1999 due to software problems that caused improper functioning of
retro rockets utilized by the Lander as it entered the Martian atmosphere.
 In October of 1999 the $125 million NASA Mars Climate Orbiter spacecraft
was believed to be lost in space due to a simple data conversion error. It was
determined that spacecraft software used certain data in English units that
should have been in metric units. Among other tasks, the orbiter was to serve as
a communications relay for the Mars Polar Lander mission, which failed for
unknown reasons in December 1999. Several investigating panels were
convened to determine the process failures that allowed the error to go
undetected.
 Bugs in software supporting a large commercial high-speed data network
affected 70,000 business customers over a period of 8 days in August of 1999.
Among those affected was the electronic trading system of the largest U.S.
 futures exchange, which was shut down for most of a week as a result of the
outages.
 In April of 1999 a software bug caused the failure of a $1.2 billion U.S. military
satellite launch, the costliest unmanned accident in the history of Cape
Canaveral launches. The failure was the latest in a string of launch failures,
triggering a complete military and industry review of U.S. space launch programs,
including software integration and testing processes. Congressional oversight
hearings were requested.
 A small town in Illinois in the U.S. received an unusually large monthly electric
bill of $7 million in March of 1999. This was about 700 times larger than its
normal bill. It turned out to be due to bugs in new software that had been
purchased by the local power company to deal with Y2K software issues.
 In early 1999 a major computer game company recalled all copies of a popular
new product due to software problems. The company made a public apology for
releasing a product before it was ready.
 The computer system of a major online U.S. stock trading service failed during
trading hours several times over a period of days in February of 1999 according
to nationwide news reports. The problem was reportedly due to bugs in a
software upgrade intended to speed online trade confirmations.
 In April of 1998 a major U.S. data communications network failed for 24 hours,
crippling a large part of some U.S. credit card transaction authorization systems
as well as other large U.S. bank, retail, and government data systems. The
cause was eventually traced to a software bug.
 January 1998 news reports told of software problems at a major U.S.
telecommunications company that resulted in no charges for long distance calls
for a month for 400,000 customers. The problem went undetected until
customers called up with questions about their bills.
 In November of 1997 the stock of a major health industry company dropped
60% due to reports of failures in computer billing systems, problems with a large
database conversion, and inadequate software testing. It was reported that more
than $100,000,000 in receivables had to be written off and that multi-million dollar
fines were levied on the company by government agencies.
 A retail store chain filed suit in August of 1997 against a transaction processing
system vendor (not a credit card company) due to the software's inability to
handle credit cards with year 2000 expiration dates.
 In August of 1997 one of the leading consumer credit reporting companies
reportedly shut down their new public web site after less than two days of
operation due to software problems. The new site allowed web site visitors
instant access, for a small fee, to their personal credit reports. However, a
number of initial users ended up viewing each others' reports instead of their
own, resulting in irate customers and nationwide publicity. The problem was
attributed to "...unexpectedly high demand from consumers and faulty software
that routed the files to the wrong computers."
  In November of 1996, newspapers reported that software bugs caused the 411
telephone information system of one of the U.S. RBOC's to fail for most of a day.
Most of the 2000 operators had to search through phone books instead of using
their 13,000,000-listing database. The bugs were introduced by new software
modifications and the problem software had been installed on both the
production and backup systems. A spokesman for the software vendor reportedly
stated that 'It had nothing to do with the integrity of the software. It was human
error.'
 On June 4 1996 the first flight of the European Space Agency's new Ariane 5
rocket failed shortly after launching, resulting in an estimated uninsured loss of a
half billion dollars. It was reportedly due to the lack of exception handling of a
floating-point error in a conversion from a 64-bit integer to a 16-bit signed integer.
 Software bugs caused the bank accounts of 823 customers of a major U.S.
bank to be credited with $924,844,208.32 each in May of 1996, according to
newspaper reports. The American Bankers Association claimed it was the largest
such error in banking history. A bank spokesman said the programming errors
were corrected and all funds were recovered.
 In August 1991 the concrete base structure for a North Sea oil platform
imploded and sank off the coast of Norway, reportedly due to errors in initially-
used design software. The enormous structure, on hitting the seabed, reportedly
was detected as a magnitude 3.0 seismic event and resulted in a loss of $700
million. The base structure was eventually redesigned and the full platform was
completed two years later, and was still in use as of 2008.
 On January 1 1984 all computers produced by one of the leading
minicomputer makers of the time reportedly failed worldwide. The cause was
claimed to be a leap year bug in a date handling function utilized in deletion of
temporary operating system files. Technicians throughout the world worked for
several days to clear up the problem. It was also reported that the same bug
affected many of the same computers four years later.
 Software bugs in a Soviet early-warning monitoring system nearly brought on
nuclear war in 1983, according to news reports in early 1999. The software was
supposed to filter out false missile detections caused by Soviet satellites picking
up sunlight reflections off cloud-tops, but failed to do so. Disaster was averted
when a Soviet commander, based on what he said was a '...funny feeling in my
gut', decided the apparent missile attack was a false alarm. The filtering software
code was rewritten.

4) While all projects will benefit from testing, some projects may not require independent
test staff to succeed.

Which projects may not need independent test staff? The answer depends on the size
and context of the project, the risks, the development methodology, the skill and
experience of the developers, and other factors. For instance, if the project is a short-
term, small, low risk project, with highly experienced programmers utilizing thorough unit
testing or test-first development, then test engineers may not be required for the project
to succeed.

In some cases an IT organization may be too small or new to have a testing staff even if
the situation calls for it. In these circumstances it may be appropriate to instead use
contractors or outsourcing, or adjust the project management and development
approach (by switching to more senior developers and agile test-first development, for
example). Inexperienced managers sometimes gamble on the success of a project by
skipping thorough testing or having programmers do post-development functional
testing of their own work, a decidedly high risk gamble.

For non-trivial-size projects or projects with non-trivial risks, a testing staff is usually
necessary. As in any business, the use of personnel with specialized skills enhances an
organization's ability to be successful in large, complex, or difficult tasks. It allows for
both a) deeper and stronger skills and b) the contribution of differing perspectives. For
example, programmers typically have the perspective of 'what are the technical issues
in making this functionality work?'. A test engineer typically has the perspective of 'what
might go wrong with this functionality, and how can we ensure it meets expectations?'.
A technical person who can be highly effective in approaching tasks from both of those
perspectives is rare, which is why, sooner or later, organizations bring in test specialists.

5) A Software might have bugs for the following reasons.

 miscommunication or no communication - as to specifics of what an application

should or shouldn't do (the application's requirements).
 software complexity - the complexity of current software applications can be
difficult to comprehend for anyone without experience in modern-day software
development. Multi-tier distributed systems, applications utilizing mutliple local
and remote web services applications, data communications, enormous
relational databases, security complexities, and sheer size of applications have
all contributed to the exponential growth in software/system complexity.
 programming errors - programmers, like anyone else, can make mistakes.
 changing requirements (whether documented or undocumented) - the end-
user may not understand the effects of changes, or may understand and request
them anyway - redesign, rescheduling of engineers, effects on other projects,
work already completed that may have to be redone or thrown out, hardware
requirements that may be affected, etc. If there are many minor changes or any
major changes, known and unknown dependencies among parts of the project
are likely to interact and cause problems, and the complexity of coordinating
changes may result in errors. Enthusiasm of engineering staff may be affected. In
 some fast-changing business environments, continuously modified requirements
may be a fact of life. In this case, management must understand the resulting
risks, and QA and test engineers must adapt and plan for continuous extensive
testing to keep the inevitable bugs from running out of control.
 time pressures - scheduling of software projects is difficult at best, often
requiring a lot of guesswork. When deadlines loom and the crunch comes,
mistakes will be made.
 egos - people prefer to say things like:
 'no problem'
 'piece of cake'
 'I can whip that out in a few hours'
 'it should be easy to update that old code'

 instead of:
 'that adds a lot of complexity and we could end up
 making a lot of mistakes'
 'we have no idea if we can do that; we'll wing it'
 'I can't estimate how long it will take, until I
 take a close look at it'
 'we can't figure out what that old spaghetti code
 did in the first place'

 If there are too many unrealistic 'no problem's', the
 result is bugs.


 poorly documented code - it's tough to maintain and modify code that is badly
written or poorly documented; the result is bugs. In many organizations
management provides no incentive for programmers to document their code or
write clear, understandable, maintainable code. In fact, it's usually the opposite:
they get points mostly for quickly turning out code, and there's job security if
nobody else can understand it ('if it was hard to write, it should be hard to read').
 software development tools - visual tools, class libraries, compilers, scripting
tools, etc. often introduce their own bugs or are poorly documented, resulting in
added bugs.

6) Software QA process can be implemented in the existing organization as follows:

 A lot depends on the size of the organization and the risks involved. For large
organizations with high-risk (in terms of lives or property) projects, serious
management buy-in is required and a formalized QA process is necessary.
  Where the risk is lower, management and organizational buy-in and QA
implementation may be a slower, step-at-a-time process. QA processes should
be balanced with productivity so as to keep bureaucracy from getting out of hand.
 For small groups or projects, a more ad-hoc process may be appropriate,
depending on the type of customers and projects. A lot will depend on team
leads or managers, feedback to developers, and ensuring adequate
communications among customers, managers, developers, and testers.
 The most value for effort will often be in (a) requirements management
processes, with a goal of clear, complete, testable requirement specifications
embodied in requirements or design documentation, or in 'agile'-type
environments extensive continuous coordination with end-users, (b) design
inspections and code inspections, and (c) post-mortems/retrospectives.
 Other possibilities include incremental self-managed team approaches such as
'Kaizen' methods of continuous process improvement, the Deming-Shewhart
Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle, and others.

7) There is a difference between Varification and Validation.

Verification typically involves reviews and meetings to evaluate documents, plans, code,
requirements, and specifications. This can be done with checklists, issues lists,
walkthroughs, and inspection meetings. Validation typically involves actual testing and
takes place after verifications are completed. The term 'IV & V' refers to Independent
Verification and Validation.

8) A Walkthrough can be defined as follows:

A 'walkthrough' is an informal meeting for evaluation or informational purposes. Little or
no preparation is usually required.

9) Inspection can be explained as follows. An inspection is more formalized than a

'walkthrough', typically with 3-8 people including a moderator, reader, and a recorder to
take notes. The subject of the inspection is typically a document such as a requirements
spec or a test plan, and the purpose is to find problems and see what's missing, not to
fix anything. Attendees should prepare for this type of meeting by reading thru the
document; most problems will be found during this preparation. The result of the
inspection meeting should be a written report. Thorough preparation for inspections is
difficult, painstaking work, but is one of the most cost effective methods of ensuring
quality.
10)      Black box testing - not based on any knowledge of internal design or code. Tests
are based on requirements and functionality.

 White box testing - based on knowledge of the internal logic of an application's

code. Tests are based on coverage of code statements, branches, paths,
conditions.
 unit testing - the most 'micro' scale of testing; to test particular functions or
code modules. Typically done by the programmer and not by testers, as it
requires detailed knowledge of the internal program design and code. Not always
easily done unless the application has a well-designed architecture with tight
code; may require developing test driver modules or test harnesses.
 incremental integration testing - continuous testing of an application as new
functionality is added; requires that various aspects of an application's
functionality be independent enough to work separately before all parts of the
program are completed, or that test drivers be developed as needed; done by
programmers or by testers.
 integration testing - testing of combined parts of an application to determine if
they function together correctly. The 'parts' can be code modules, individual
applications, client and server applications on a network, etc. This type of testing
is especially relevant to client/server and distributed systems.
 functional testing - black-box type testing geared to functional requirements of
an application; this type of testing should be done by testers. This doesn't mean
that the programmers shouldn't check that their code works before releasing it
(which of course applies to any stage of testing.)
 system testing - black-box type testing that is based on overall requirements
specifications; covers all combined parts of a system.
 end-to-end testing - similar to system testing; the 'macro' end of the test scale;
involves testing of a complete application environment in a situation that mimics
real-world use, such as interacting with a database, using network
communications, or interacting with other hardware, applications, or systems if
appropriate.
 sanity testing or smoke testing - typically an initial testing effort to determine if
a new software version is performing well enough to accept it for a major testing
effort. For example, if the new software is crashing systems every 5 minutes,
bogging down systems to a crawl, or corrupting databases, the software may not
be in a 'sane' enough condition to warrant further testing in its current state.
 regression testing - re-testing after fixes or modifications of the software or its
environment. It can be difficult to determine how much re-testing is needed,
especially near the end of the development cycle. Automated testing approaches
can be especially useful for this type of testing.
 acceptance testing - final testing based on specifications of the end-user or
customer, or based on use by end-users/customers over some limited period of
time.
 load testing - testing an application under heavy loads, such as testing of a
web site under a range of loads to determine at what point the system's response
time degrades or fails.
 stress testing - term often used interchangeably with 'load' and 'performance'
testing. Also used to describe such tests as system functional testing while under
unusually heavy loads, heavy repetition of certain actions or inputs, input of large
numerical values, large complex queries to a database system, etc.
 performance testing - term often used interchangeably with 'stress' and 'load'
testing. Ideally 'performance' testing (and any other 'type' of testing) is defined in
requirements documentation or QA or Test Plans.
 usability testing - testing for 'user-friendliness'. Clearly this is subjective, and
will depend on the targeted end-user or customer. User interviews, surveys,
video recording of user sessions, and other techniques can be used.
Programmers and testers are usually not appropriate as usability testers.
 install/uninstall testing - testing of full, partial, or upgrade install/uninstall
processes.
 recovery testing - testing how well a system recovers from crashes, hardware
failures, or other catastrophic problems.
 failover testing - typically used interchangeably with 'recovery testing'
 security testing - testing how well the system protects against unauthorized
internal or external access, willful damage, etc; may require sophisticated testing
techniques.
 compatability testing - testing how well software performs in a particular
hardware/software/operating system/network/etc. environment.
 exploratory testing - often taken to mean a creative, informal software test that
is not based on formal test plans or test cases; testers may be learning the
software as they test it.
 ad-hoc testing - similar to exploratory testing, but often taken to mean that the
testers have significant understanding of the software before testing it.
 context-driven testing - testing driven by an understanding of the environment,
culture, and intended use of software. For example, the testing approach for life-
critical medical equipment software would be completely different than that for a
low-cost computer game.
 user acceptance testing - determining if software is satisfactory to an end-user
or customer.
 comparison testing - comparing software weaknesses and strengths to
competing products.
 alpha testing - testing of an application when development is nearing
completion; minor design changes may still be made as a result of such testing.
Typically done by end-users or others, not by programmers or testers.
 beta testing - testing when development and testing are essentially completed
and final bugs and problems need to be found before final release. Typically
done by end-users or others, not by programmers or testers.
  mutation testing - a method for determining if a set of test data or test cases is
useful, by deliberately introducing various code changes ('bugs') and retesting
with the original test data/cases to determine if the 'bugs' are detected. Proper
implementation requires large computational resources.

11)  5 common problems in Software Development process are:

 poor requirements - if requirements are unclear, incomplete, too general, and

not testable, there may be problems.
 unrealistic schedule - if too much work is crammed in too little time, problems
are inevitable.
 inadequate testing - no one will know whether or not the software is any good
until customers complain or systems crash.
 featuritis - requests to add on new features after development goals are
agreed on.
 miscommunication - if developers don't know what's needed or customer's
have erroneous expectations, problems can be expected.

12)  5 common solutions to software development process are:

 solid requirements - clear, complete, detailed, cohesive, attainable, testable

requirements that are agreed to by all players. In 'agile'-type environments,
continuous close coordination with customers/end-users is necessary to ensure
that changing/emerging requirements are understood.
 realistic schedules - allow adequate time for planning, design, testing, bug
fixing, re-testing, changes, and documentation; personnel should be able to
complete the project without burning out.
 adequate testing - start testing early on, re-test after fixes or changes, plan for
adequate time for testing and bug-fixing. 'Early' testing could include static code
analysis/testing, test-first development, unit testing by developers, built-in testing
and diagnostic capabilities, automated post-build testing, etc.
 stick to initial requirements where feasible - be prepared to defend against
excessive changes and additions once development has begun, and be prepared
to explain consequences. If changes are necessary, they should be adequately
reflected in related schedule changes. If possible, work closely with
customers/end-users to manage expectations. In 'agile'-type environments, initial
requirements may be expected to change significantly, requiring that true agile
processes be in place and followed.
 communication - require walkthroughs and inspections when appropriate;
make extensive use of group communication tools - groupware, wiki's, bug-
tracking tools and change management tools, intranet capabilities, etc.; ensure
 that information/documentation is available and up-to-date - preferably electronic,
not paper; promote teamwork and cooperation; use protoypes and/or continuous
communication with end-users if possible to clarify expectations.

13)  Quality software is reasonably bug-free, delivered on time and within budget, meets
requirements and/or expectations, and is maintainable. However, quality is obviously a
subjective term. It will depend on who the 'customer' is and their overall influence in the
scheme of things. A wide-angle view of the 'customers' of a software development
project might include end-users, customer acceptance testers, customer contract
officers, customer management, the development organization's
management/accountants/testers/salespeople, future software maintenance engineers,
stockholders, magazine columnists, etc. Each type of 'customer' will have their own
slant on 'quality' - the accounting department might define quality in terms of profits
while an end-user might define quality as user-friendly and bug-free.

14) 'Good code' is code that works, is reasonably bug free, and is readable and
maintainable. Some organizations have coding 'standards' that all developers are
supposed to adhere to, but everyone has different ideas about what's best, or what is
too many or too few rules. There are also various theories and metrics, such as
McCabe Complexity metrics. It should be kept in mind that excessive use of standards
and rules can stifle productivity and creativity. 'Peer reviews', 'buddy checks' pair
programming, code analysis tools, etc. can be used to check for problems and enforce
standards.
For example, in C/C++ coding, here are some typical ideas to consider in setting
rules/standards; these may or may not apply to a particular situation:

 minimize or eliminate use of global variables.

 use descriptive function and method names - use both upper and lower case,
avoid abbreviations, use as many characters as necessary to be adequately
descriptive (use of more than 20 characters is not out of line); be consistent in
naming conventions.
 use descriptive variable names - use both upper and lower case, avoid
abbreviations, use as many characters as necessary to be adequately
descriptive (use of more than 20 characters is not out of line); be consistent in
naming conventions.
 function and method sizes should be minimized; less than 100 lines of code is
good, less than 50 lines is preferable.
 function descriptions should be clearly spelled out in comments preceding a
function's code.
 organize code for readability.
  use whitespace generously - vertically and horizontally
 each line of code should contain 70 characters max.
 one code statement per line.
 coding style should be consistent throught a program (eg, use of brackets,
indentations, naming conventions, etc.)
 in adding comments, err on the side of too many rather than too few
comments; a common rule of thumb is that there should be at least as many lines
of comments (including header blocks) as lines of code.
 no matter how small, an application should include documentaion of the overall
program function and flow (even a few paragraphs is better than nothing); or if
possible a separate flow chart and detailed program documentation.
 make extensive use of error handling procedures and status and error logging.
 for C++, to minimize complexity and increase maintainability, avoid too many
levels of inheritance in class heirarchies (relative to the size and complexity of
the application). Minimize use of multiple inheritance, and minimize use of
operator overloading (note that the Java programming language eliminates
multiple inheritance and operator overloading.)
 for C++, keep class methods small, less than 50 lines of code per method is
preferable.
 for C++, make liberal use of exception handlers

15) 'Design' could refer to many things, but often refers to 'functional design' or 'internal
design'. Good internal design is indicated by software code whose overall structure is
clear, understandable, easily modifiable, and maintainable; is robust with sufficient
error-handling and status logging capability; and works correctly when implemented.
Good functional design is indicated by an application whose functionality can be traced
back to customer and end-user requirements. (See further discussion of functional and
internal design in 'What's the big deal about requirements?' in Part -2.) For programs
that have a user interface, it's often a good idea to assume that the end user will have
little computer knowledge and may not read a user manual or even the on-line help;
some common rules-of-thumb include:

 the program should act in a way that least surprises the user
 it should always be evident to the user what can be done next and how to exit
 the program shouldn't let the users do something stupid without warning them.

16)  Common QA Standards are as follows:

 SEI = 'Software Engineering Institute' at Carnegie-Mellon University; initiated

by the U.S. Defense Department to help improve software development
processes.
  CMM = 'Capability Maturity Model', now called the CMMI ('Capability Maturity
Model Integration'), developed by the SEI. It's a model of 5 levels of process
'maturity' that determine effectiveness in delivering quality software. It is geared
to large organizations such as large U.S. Defense Department contractors.
However, many of the QA processes involved are appropriate to any
organization, and if reasonably applied can be helpful. Organizations can receive
CMMI ratings by undergoing assessments by qualified auditors.
Level 1 - characterized by chaos, periodic panics, and
heroic
efforts required by individuals to successfully
complete projects. Few if any processes in
place;
successes may not be repeatable.

Level 2 - software project tracking, requirements

management,
realistic planning, and configuration management
processes are in place; successful practices can
be repeated.

Level 3 - standard software development and maintenance

processes
are integrated throughout an organization; a
Software
Engineering Process Group is is in place to
oversee
software processes, and training programs are
used to
ensure understanding and compliance.

Level 4 - metrics are used to track productivity,

processes,
and products. Project performance is
predictable,
and quality is consistently high.

Level 5 - the focus is on continouous process improvement.

The
impact of new processes and technologies can be
predicted and effectively implemented when
required.
 Perspective on CMM ratings: During 1997-2001, 1018
organizations
were assessed. Of those, 27% were rated at Level 1, 39% at
2,
23% at 3, 6% at 4, and 5% at 5. (For ratings during the
period
1992-96, 62% were at Level 1, 23% at 2, 13% at 3, 2% at 4,
and
0.4% at 5.) The median size of organizations was 100
software
engineering/maintenance personnel; 32% of organizations
were
U.S. federal contractors or agencies. For those rated at
Level 1, the most problematical key process area was in
Software Quality Assurance.

 ISO = 'International Organisation for Standardization' - The ISO 9001:2008

standard (which provides some clarifications of the previous standard 9001:2000)
concerns quality systems that are assessed by outside auditors, and it applies to
many kinds of production and manufacturing organizations, not just software. It
covers documentation, design, development, production, testing, installation,
servicing, and other processes. The full set of standards consists of: (a)Q9001-
2008 - Quality Management Systems: Requirements; (b)Q9000-2005 - Quality
Management Systems: Fundamentals and Vocabulary; (c)Q9004-2009 - Quality
Management Systems: Guidelines for Performance Improvements. To be ISO
9001 certified, a third-party auditor assesses an organization, and certification is
typically good for about 3 years, after which a complete reassessment is
required. Note that ISO certification does not necessarily indicate quality
products - it indicates only that documented processes are followed. Also
see http://www.iso.org/ for the latest information. In the U.S. the standards can
be purchased via the ASQ web site at http://www.asq.org/quality-press/ 
ISO 9126 is a standard for the evaluation of software quality and defines six high
level quality characteristics that can be used in software evaluation. It includes
functionality, reliability, usability, efficiency, maintainability, and portability.
 IEEE = 'Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers' - among other things,
creates standards such as 'IEEE Standard for Software Test Documentation'
(IEEE/ANSI Standard 829), 'IEEE Standard of Software Unit Testing (IEEE/ANSI
Standard 1008), 'IEEE Standard for Software Quality Assurance Plans'
(IEEE/ANSI Standard 730), and others.
 ANSI = 'American National Standards Institute', the primary industrial
standards body in the U.S.; publishes some software-related standards in
conjunction with the IEEE and ASQ (American Society for Quality).
  Other software development/IT management process assessment methods
besides CMMI and ISO 9000 include SPICE, Trillium, TickIT, Bootstrap, ITIL,
MOF, and CobiT.

17)  The life cycle begins when an application is first conceived and ends when it is no
longer in use. It includes aspects such as initial concept, requirements analysis,
functional design, internal design, documentation planning, test planning, coding,
document preparation, integration, testing, maintenance, updates, retesting, phase-out,
and other aspects.

FAQ - 2 Answers
1) A good test engineer has a 'test to break' attitude, an ability to take the point of view
of the customer, a strong desire for quality, and an attention to detail. Tact and
diplomacy are useful in maintaining a cooperative relationship with developers, and an
ability to communicate with both technical (developers) and non-technical (customers,
management) people is useful. Previous software development experience can be
helpful as it provides a deeper understanding of the software development process,
gives the tester an appreciation for the developers' point of view, and reduce the
learning curve in automated test tool programming. Judgement skills are needed to
assess high-risk or critical areas of an application on which to focus testing efforts when
time is limited.

2) The same qualities a good tester has are useful for a QA engineer. Additionally, they
must be able to understand the entire software development process and how it can fit
into the business approach and goals of the organization. Communication skills and the
ability to understand various sides of issues are important. In organizations in the early
stages of implementing QA processes, patience and diplomacy are especially needed.
An ability to find problems as well as to see 'what's missing' is important for inspections
and reviews.

3) A good QA, test, or QA/Test(combined) manager should:

 be familiar with the software development process

 be able to maintain enthusiasm of their team and promote a positive
atmosphere, despite what is a somewhat 'negative' process (e.g., looking for or
preventing problems)
 be able to promote teamwork to increase productivity
 be able to promote cooperation between software, test, and QA engineers
  have the diplomatic skills needed to promote improvements in QA processes
 have the ability to withstand pressures and say 'no' to other managers when
quality is insufficient or QA processes are not being adhered to
 have people judgement skills for hiring and keeping skilled personnel
 be able to communicate with technical and non-technical people, engineers,
managers, and customers.
 be able to run meetings and keep them focused

4) Generally, the larger the team/organization, the more useful it will be to stress
documentation, in order to manage and communicate more efficiently. (Note that
documentation may be electronic, not necessarily in printable form, and may be
embedded in code comments, may be embodied in well-written test cases, user stories,
etc.) QA practices may be documented to enhance their repeatability. Specifications,
designs, business rules, configurations, code changes, test plans, test cases, bug
reports, user manuals, etc. may be documented in some form. There would ideally be a
system for easily finding and obtaining information and determining what documentation
will have a particular piece of information. Change management for documentation can
be used where appropriate. For agile software projects, it should be kept in mind that
one of the agile values is "Working software over comprehensive documentation", which
does not mean 'no' documentation. Agile projects tend to stress the short term view of
project needs; documentation often becomes more important in a project's long-term
context.

5) Depending on the project, it may or may not be a 'big deal'. For agile projects,
requirements are expected to change and evolve, and detailed documented
requirements may not be needed. However some requirements, in the form of user
stories or something similar, are useful. For non-agile types of projects detailed
documented requirements are usually needed. (Note that requirements documentation
can be electronic, not necessarily in the form of printable documents, and may be
embedded in code comments, or may be embodied in well-written test cases, wiki's,
user stories, etc.) Requirements are the details describing an application's externally-
perceived functionality and properties. Requirements are ideally clear, complete,
reasonably detailed, cohesive, attainable, and testable. A non-testable requirement
would be, for example, 'user-friendly' (too subjective). A more testable requirement
would be something like 'the user must enter their previously-assigned password to
access the application'. Determining and organizing requirements details in a useful and
efficient way can be a difficult effort; different methods and software tools are available
depending on the particular project. Many books are available that describe various
approaches to this task.
Care should be taken to involve ALL of a project's significant 'customers' in the
requirements process. 'Customers' could be in-house personnel or outside personnel,
and could include end-users, customer acceptance testers, customer contract officers,
customer management, future software maintenance engineers, salespeople, etc.
Anyone who could later derail the success of the project if their expectations aren't met
should be included if possible.

Organizations vary considerably in their handling of requirements specifications. Often

the requirements are spelled out in a document with statements such as 'The product
shall.....'. 'Design' specifications should not be confused with 'requirements'; design
specifications are ideally traceable back to the requirements.

In some organizations requirements may end up in high level project plans, functional
specification documents, in design documents, or in other documents at various levels
of detail. No matter what they are called, some type of documentation with detailed
requirements will be useful to testers in order to properly plan and execute tests.
Without such documentation, there will be no clear-cut way to determine if a software
application is performing correctly.

If testable requirements are not available or are only partially available, useful testing
can still be performed. In this situation test results may be more oriented to providing
information about the state of the software and risk levels, rather than providing pass/fail
results. A relevant testing approach in this situation may include an approach called
'exploratory testing'. Many software projects have a mix of documented testable
requirements, poorly documented requirements, undocumented requirements, and
changing requirements. In such projects a mix of scripted and exploratory testing
approaches may be useful.

'Agile' approaches use methods requiring close interaction and cooperation between
programmers and stakeholders/customers/end-users to iteratively develop
requirements, user stories, etc. In the XP 'test first' approach developers create
automated unit testing code before the application code, and these automated unit tests
essentially embody the requirements.

6) The following are some of the steps to consider:

 Obtain requirements, functional design, and internal design specifications, user

stories, and other available/necessary information
 Obtain budget and schedule requirements
 Determine project-related personnel and their responsibilities, reporting
requirements, required standards and processes (such as release processes,
change processes, etc.)
  Determine project context, relative to the existing quality culture of the
product/organization/business, and how it might impact testing scope,
aproaches, and methods.
 Identify application's higher-risk and mor important aspects, set priorities, and
determine scope and limitations of tests.
 Determine test approaches and methods - unit, integration, functional, system,
security, load, usability tests, etc.
 Determine test environment requirements (hardware, software, configuration,
versions, communications, etc.)
 Determine testware requirements (automation tools, coverage analyzers, test
tracking, problem/bug tracking, etc.)
 Determine test input data requirements
 Identify tasks, those responsible for tasks, and labor requirements
 Set schedule estimates, timelines, milestones
 Determine, where apprapriate, input equivalence classes, boundary value
analyses, error classes
 Prepare test plan document(s) and have needed reviews/approvals
 Write test cases
 Have needed reviews/inspections/approvals of test cases
 Prepare test environment and testware, obtain needed user manuals/reference
documents/configuration guides/installation guides, set up test tracking
processes, set up logging and archiving processes, set up or obtain test input
data
 Obtain and install software releases
 Perform tests
 Evaluate and report results
 Track problems/bugs and fixes
 Retest as needed
 Maintain and update test plans, test cases, test environment, and testware
through life cycle

7) A software project test plan is a document that describes the objectives, scope,
approach, and focus of a software testing effort. The process of preparing a test plan is
a useful way to think through the efforts needed to validate the acceptability of a
software product. The completed document will help people outside the test group
understand the 'why' and 'how' of product validation. It should be thorough enough to be
useful but not so overly detailed that no one outside the test group will read it. The
following are some of the items that might be included in a test plan, depending on the
particular project:

 Title
 Identification of software including version/release numbers
 Revision history of document including authors, dates, approvals
 Table of Contents
 Purpose of document, intended audience
 Objective of testing effort
 Software product overview
 Relevant related document list, such as requirements, design documents,
other test plans, etc.
 Relevant standards or legal requirements
 Traceability requirements
 Relevant naming conventions and identifier conventions
 Overall software project organization and personnel/contact-info/responsibilties
 Test organization and personnel/contact-info/responsibilities
 Assumptions and dependencies
 Project risk analysis
 Testing priorities and focus
 Scope and limitations of testing
 Test outline - a decomposition of the test approach by test type, feature,
functionality, process, system, module, etc. as applicable
 Outline of data input equivalence classes, boundary value analysis, error
classes
 Test environment - hardware, operating systems, other required software, data
configurations, interfaces to other systems
 Test environment validity analysis - differences between the test and
production systems and their impact on test validity.
 Test environment setup and configuration issues
 Software migration processes
 Software CM processes
 Test data setup requirements
 Database setup requirements
 Outline of system-logging/error-logging/other capabilities, and tools such as
screen capture software, that will be used to help describe and report bugs
 Discussion of any specialized software or hardware tools that will be used by
testers to help track the cause or source of bugs
 Test automation - justification and overview
 Test tools to be used, including versions, patches, etc.
 Test script/test code maintenance processes and version control
 Problem tracking and resolution - tools and processes
 Project test metrics to be used
 Reporting requirements and testing deliverables
 Software entrance and exit criteria
 Initial sanity testing period and criteria
 Test suspension and restart criteria
 Personnel allocation
  Personnel pre-training needs
 Test site/location
 Outside test organizations to be utilized and their purpose, responsibilties,
deliverables, contact persons, and coordination issues
 Relevant proprietary, classified, security, and licensing issues.
 Open issues
 Appendix - glossary, acronyms, etc.

8) A test case describes an input, action, or event and an expected response, to
determine if a feature of a software application is working correctly. A test case may
contain particulars such as test case identifier, test case name, objective, test
conditions/setup, input data requirements, steps, and expected results. The level of
detail may vary significantly depending on the organization and project context.

Note that the process of developing test cases can help find problems in the
requirements or design of an application, since it requires completely thinking through
the operation of the application. For this reason, it's useful to prepare test cases early in
the development cycle if possible.

9) The bug needs to be communicated and assigned to developers that can fix it. After
the problem is resolved, fixes should be re-tested, and determinations made regarding
requirements for regression testing to check that fixes didn't create problems elsewhere.
If a problem-tracking system is in place, it should encapsulate these processes. A
variety of commercial problem-tracking/management software tools are available  The
following are items to consider in the tracking process:

 Complete information such that developers can understand the bug, get an
idea of it's severity, and reproduce it if necessary.
 Bug identifier (number, ID, etc.)
 Current bug status (e.g., 'Released for Retest', 'New', etc.)
 The application name or identifier and version
 The function, module, feature, object, screen, etc. where the bug occurred
 Environment specifics, system, platform, relevant hardware specifics
 Test case name/number/identifier
 One-line bug description
 Full bug description
 Description of steps needed to reproduce the bug if not covered by a test case
or if the developer doesn't have easy access to the test case/test script/test tool
 Names and/or descriptions of file/data/messages/etc. used in test
 File excerpts/error messages/log file excerpts/screen shots/test tool logs that
would be helpful in finding the cause of the problem
  Severity estimate (a 5-level range such as 1-5 or 'critical'-to-'low' is common)
 Was the bug reproducible?
 Tester name
 Test date
 Bug reporting date
 Name of developer/group/organization the problem is assigned to
 Description of problem cause
 Description of fix
 Code section/file/module/class/method that was fixed
 Date of fix
 Application version that contains the fix
 Tester responsible for retest
 Retest date
 Retest results
 Regression testing requirements
 Tester responsible for regression tests
 Regression testing results

A reporting or tracking process should enable notification of appropriate personnel at

various stages. For instance, testers need to know when retesting is needed,
developers need to know when bugs are found and how to get the needed information,
and reporting/summary capabilities are needed for managers.

10) Configuration management covers the processes used to control, coordinate, and

track: code, requirements, documentation, problems, change requests, designs,
tools/compilers/libraries/patches, changes made to them, and who makes the changes.

11) The best bet in this situation is for the testers to go through the process of reporting
whatever bugs or blocking-type problems initially show up, with the focus being on
critical bugs. Since this type of problem can severely affect schedules, and indicates
deeper problems in the software development process (such as insufficient unit testing
or insufficient integration testing, poor design, improper build or release procedures,
etc.) managers should be notified, and provided with some documentation as evidence
of the problem.

12) This can be difficult to determine. Most modern software applications are so

complex, and run in such an interdependent environment, that complete testing can
never be done. Common factors in deciding when to stop are:
 

 Deadlines (release deadlines, testing deadlines, etc.)

 Test cases completed with certain percentage passed
 Test budget depleted
 Coverage of code/functionality/requirements reaches a specified point
 Bug rate falls below a certain level
 Beta or alpha testing period ends

13) Use risk analysis, along with discussion with project stakeholders, to determine
where testing should be focused.
Since it's rarely possible to test every possible aspect of an application, every possible
combination of events, every dependency, or everything that could go wrong, risk
analysis is appropriate to most software development projects. This requires judgement
skills, common sense, and experience. (If warranted, formal methods are also
available.) Considerations can include:

 Which functionality is most important to the project's intended purpose?

 Which functionality is most visible to the user?
 Which functionality has the largest safety impact?
 Which functionality has the largest financial impact on users?
 Which aspects of the application are most important to the customer?
 Which aspects of the application can be tested early in the development cycle?
 Which parts of the code are most complex, and thus most subject to errors?
 Which parts of the application were developed in rush or panic mode?
 Which aspects of similar/related previous projects caused problems?
 Which aspects of similar/related previous projects had large maintenance
expenses?
 Which parts of the requirements and design are unclear or poorly thought out?
 What do the developers think are the highest-risk aspects of the application?
 What kinds of problems would cause the worst publicity?
 What kinds of problems would cause the most customer service complaints?
 What kinds of tests could easily cover multiple functionalities?
 Which tests will have the best high-risk-coverage to time-required ratio?

14) Consider the impact of project errors, not the size of the project. However, if
extensive testing is still not justified, risk analysis is again needed and the same
considerations as described previously in 'What if there isn't enough time for thorough
testing?' apply. The tester might then do ad hoc or exploratory testing, or write up a
limited test plan based on the risk analysis.
15) Client/server applications can be highly complex due to the multiple dependencies
among clients, data communications, hardware, and servers, especially in multi-tier
systems. 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 and open source tools to assist with
such testing.

16) Web sites are essentially client/server applications - with web servers and 'browser'
clients. Consideration should be given to the interactions between html pages, web
services, encrypted communications, Internet connections, firewalls, applications that
run in web pages (such as javascript, flash, other plug-in applications), the wide variety
of applications that could run on the server side, etc. Additionally, there are a wide
variety of servers and browsers, mobile platforms, 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. Other considerations
might include:

 What are the expected loads on the server, and what kind of performance is
required under such loads (such as web server response time, database query
response times). What kinds of tools will be needed for performance testing
(such as web load testing tools, other tools already in house that can be adapted,
load generation appliances, etc.)?
 Who is the target audience? What kind and version of browsers will they be
using, and how extensively should testing be for these variations? What kind of
connection speeds will they by using? Are they intra- organization (thus with
likely high connection speeds and similar browsers) or Internet-wide (thus with a
wider variety of connection speeds and browser types)?
 What kind of performance is expected on the client side (e.g., how fast should
pages appear, how fast should flash, applets, etc. load and run)?
 Will down time for server and content maintenance/upgrades be allowed? how
much?
 What kinds of security (firewalls, encryption, passwords, functionality, etc.) will
be required and what is it expected to do? How can it be tested?
 What internationilization/localization/language requirements are there, and how
are they to be verified?
 How reliable are the site's Internet connections required to be? And how does
that affect backup system or redundant connection requirements and testing?
  What processes will be required to manage updates to the web site's content,
and what are the requirements for maintaining, tracking, and controlling page
content, graphics, links, etc.?
 Which HTML and related specification will be adhered to? How strictly? What
variations will be allowed for targeted browsers?
 Will there be any standards or requirements for page appearance and/or
graphics, 508 compliance, etc. throughout a site or parts of a site?
 Will there be any development practices/standards utilized for web page
components and identifiers, which can significantly impact test automation.
 How will internal and external links be validated and updated? how often?
 Can testing be done on the production system, or will a separate test system
be required? How are browser caching, variations in browser option settings,
connection variabilities, and real-world internet 'traffic congestion' problems to be
accounted for in testing?
 How extensive or customized are the server logging and reporting
requirements; are they considered an integral part of the system and do they
require testing?
 How are flash, applets, javascripts, ActiveX components, etc. to be maintained,
tracked, controlled, and tested?

17) Well-engineered object-oriented design can make it easier to trace from code to

internal design to functional design to requirements. While there will be little affect on
black box testing (where an understanding of the internal design of the application is
unnecessary), white-box testing can be oriented to the application's objects, methods,
etc. If the application was well-designed this can simplify test design and test
automation design.

18) Extreme Programming (XP) is a software development approach for small teams on

risk-prone projects with unstable requirements. It was created by Kent Beck who
described the approach in his book 'Extreme Programming Explained' Testing ('extreme
testing') is a core aspect of Extreme Programming. Programmers are expected to write
unit and functional test code first - before writing the application code. Test code is
under source control along with the rest of the code. Customers are expected to be an
integral part of the project team and to help develope scenarios for acceptance/black
box testing. Acceptance tests are preferably automated, and are modified and rerun for
each of the frequent development iterations. QA and test personnel are also required to
be an integral part of the project team. Detailed requirements documentation is not
used, and frequent re-scheduling, re-estimating, and re-prioritizing is expected. For
more info on XP and other 'agile' software development approaches (Scrum, Crystal,
etc.)
FAQ - 3 Answers
1) Solving problems is a high-visibility process; preventing problems is low-visibility.
This is illustrated by an old parable:
In ancient China there was a family of healers, one of whom was known throughout the
land and employed as a physician to a great lord. The physician was asked which of his
family was the most skillful healer. He replied,
"I tend to the sick and dying with drastic and dramatic treatments, and on occasion
someone is cured and my name gets out among the lords."
"My elder brother cures sickness when it just begins to take root, and his skills are
known among the local peasants and neighbors."
"My eldest brother is able to sense the spirit of sickness and eradicate it before it takes
form. His name is unknown outside our home."
This is a problem in any business, but it's a particularly difficult problem in the software
industry. Software quality problems are often not as readily apparent as they might be in
the case of an industry with more physical products, such as auto manufacturing or
home construction.

Additionally: Many organizations are able to determine who is skilled at fixing problems,
and then reward such people. However, determining who has a talent for preventing
problems in the first place, and figuring out how to incentivize such behavior, is a
significant challenge.

2) Risk management means the actions taken to avoid things going wrong on a
software development project, things that might negatively impact the scope, quality,
timeliness, or cost of a project. This is, of course, a shared responsibility among
everyone involved in a project. However, there needs to be a 'buck stops here' person
who can consider the relevant tradeoffs when decisions are required, and who can
ensure that everyone is handling their risk management responsibilities.

It is not unusual for the term 'risk management' to never come up at all in a software
organization or project. If it does come up, it's often assumed to be the responsibility of
QA or test personnel. Or there may be a 'risks' or 'issues' section of a project, QA, or
test plan, and it's assumed that this means that risk management has taken place.

The issues here are similar to those for the question "Who should decide when software
is ready to be released?" It's generally NOT a good idea for a test lead, test manager, or
QA manager to be the 'buck stops here' person for risk management. Typically QA/Test
personnel or managers are not managers of developers, analysts, designers and many
other project personnel, and so it would be difficult for them to ensure that everyone on
a project is handling their risk management responsibilities. Additionally, knowledge of
all the considerations that go into risk management mitigation and tradeoff decisions is
rarely the province of QA/Test personnel or managers. Based on these factors, the
project manager is usually the most appropriate 'buck stops here' risk management
person. QA/Test personnel can, however, provide input to the project manager. Such
input could include analysis of quality-related risks, risk monitoring, process adherence
reporting, defect reporting, and other information.

3) In many projects this depends on the release criteria for the software. Such criteria
are often in turn based on the decision to end testing, discussed in part 2 item"How can
it be known when to stop testing?" Unfortunately, for any but the simplest software
projects, it is nearly impossible to adequately specify useful criteria without a significant
amount of assumptions and subjectivity. For example, if the release criteria is based on
passing a certain set of tests, there is likely an assumption that the tests have
adequately addressed all appropriate software risks. For most software projects, this
would of course be impossible without enormous expense, so this assumption would be
a large leap of faith. Additionally, since most software projects involve a balance of
quality, timeliness, and cost, testing alone cannot address how to balance all three of
these competing factors when release decisions are needed.

A typical approach is for a lead tester or QA or Test manager to be the release decision
maker. This again involves significant assumptions - such as an assumption that the
test manager understands the spectrum of considerations that are important in
determining whether software quality is 'sufficient' for release, or the assumption that
quality does not have to be balanced with timeliness and cost. In many organizations,
'sufficient quality' is not well defined, is extremely subjective, may have never been
usefully discussed, or may vary from project to project or even from day to day.

Release criteria considerations can include deadlines, sales goals,

business/market/competitive considerations, business segment quality norms, legal
requirements, technical and programming considerations, end-user expectations,
internal budgets, impacts on other organization projects or goals, and a variety of other
factors. Knowledge of all these factors is often shared among a number of personnel in
a large organization, such as the project manager, director, customer service manager,
technical lead or manager, marketing manager, QA manager, etc. In smaller
organizations or projects it may be appropriate for one person to be knowledgeable in
all these areas, but that person is typically a project manager, not a test lead or QA
manager.

For these reasons, it's generally not a good idea for a test lead, test manager, or QA
manager to decide when software is ready to be released. Their responsibility should be
to provide input to the appropriate person or group that makes a release decision. For
small organizations and projects that person could be a product manager, a project
manager, or similar manager. For larger organizations and projects, release decisions
might be made by a committee of personnel with sufficient collective knowledge of the
relevant considerations.

4) This is a common problem for organizations where there are expectations that
requirements can be pre-determined and remain stable. If these expectations are
reasonable, here are some approaches:

 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 some type of 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 refactor 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).
If this is a continuing problem, and the expectation that requirements can be pre-
determined and remain stable is NOT reasonable, it may be a good idea to figure out
why the expectations are not aligned with reality, and to refactor an organization's or
project's software development process to take this into account. It may be appropriate
to consider agile development approaches.

5) It may take serious effort to determine if an application has significant unexpected or
hidden functionality, and it could 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. (If the functionality is minor and low risk then
no action may be necessary.) If not removed, information will be needed to determine
risks and to determine any added testing needs or regression testing needs.
Management should be made aware of any significant added risks as a result of the
unexpected functionality.

This problem is a standard aspect of projects that include COTS (Commercial Off-The-
Shelf) software or modified COTS software. The COTS part of the project will typically
have a large amount of functionality that is not included in project requirements, or may
be simply undetermined. Depending on the situation, it may be appropriate to perform
in-depth analysis of the COTS software and work closely with the end user to determine
which pre-existing COTS functionality is important and which functionality may interact
with or be affected by the non-COTS aspects of the project. A significant regression
testing effort may be needed (again, depending on the situation), and automated
regression testing may be useful.

6) By implementing QA processes slowly over time, using consensus to reach

agreement on processes, focusing on processes that align tightly with organizational
goals, and adjusting/experimenting/refactoring as an organization matures, productivity
can 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. At the same time, attempts should be made to keep processes simple
and efficient, avoid a 'Process Police' mentality, minimize paperwork, promote
computer-based processes and automated tracking and reporting, minimize time
required in meetings, and promote training as part of the QA process. However, no one
- especially talented technical types - likes rules or bureaucracy, and in the short run
things may slow down a bit. A typical scenario would be that more days of planning,
reviews, and inspections will be needed, but less time will be required for late-night bug-
fixing and handling of irate customers.
Other possibilities include incremental self-managed team approaches such as 'Kaizen'
methods of continuous process improvement, the Deming-Shewhart Plan-Do-Check-Act
cycle, and others.

7) This is a common problem in the software industry, especially in new technology

areas. There is generally no easy solution in this situation. One approach is:

 Hire good people

 Management should 'ruthlessly prioritize' quality issues and maintain focus on
the customer
 Everyone in the organization should be clear on what 'quality' means to the
customer

Depending on the growth rate, it is possible that incremental self-managed team

approaches may be applicable, such as 'Kaizen' methods of continuous process
improvement, or the Deming-Shewhart Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle, and others.

8)        Possibly. For small projects, the time needed to learn and implement them may
not be worth it unless personnel are already familiar with the tools. For larger projects,
or on-going long-term projects they can be valuable.

 A common type of automated tool is the 'record/playback' type. For example, a

tester could click through all combinations of menu choices, dialog box choices,
buttons, etc. in an application GUI and have them 'recorded' and the results
logged by a tool. The 'recording' is typically in the form of text based on a
scripting language that is interpretable by the testing tool. Usually the recorded
script is manually modified and enhanced. If new buttons are added, or some
underlying code in the application is changed, etc. the application might then be
retested by just 'playing back' the 'recorded' actions, and comparing the logging
results to check effects of the changes. The problem with such tools is that if
there are continual changes to the system being tested, the 'recordings' may
have to be changed so much that it becomes very time-consuming to
continuously update the scripts. Additionally, interpretation and analysis of results
(screens, data, logs, etc.) can be a difficult task. Note that there are
record/playback tools for text-based interfaces also, and for all types of platforms.
 Another common type of approach for automation of functional testing is 'data-
driven' or 'keyword-driven' automated testing, in which the test drivers are
separated from the data and/or actions utilized in testing (an 'action' would be
something like 'enter a value in a text box'). Test drivers can be in the form of
automated test tools or custom-written testing software. The data and actions
 can be more easily maintained - such as via a spreadsheet - since they are
separate from the test drivers. The test drivers 'read' the data/action information
to perform specified tests. This approach can enable more efficient control,
development, documentation, and maintenance of automated tests/test cases.
 Other automated tools can include:
code analyzers - monitor code complexity, adherence to
standards, etc.

coverage analyzers - these tools check which parts of the

code have been exercised by a test, and may
be oriented to code statement coverage,
condition coverage, path coverage, etc.

memory analyzers - such as bounds-checkers and leak

detectors.

load/performance test tools - for testing client/server

and web applications under various load
levels.

web test tools - to check that links are valid, HTML code
usage is correct, client-side and
server-side programs work, a web site's
interactions are secure.

other tools - for test case management, documentation

management, bug reporting, and
configuration
management, file and database comparisons,
screen
captures, security testing, macro
recorders, etc.

Test automation is, of course, possible without COTS tools. Many successful
automation efforts utilize custom automation software that is targeted for specific
projects, specific software applications, or a specific organization's software
development environment. In test-driven agile software development environments,
automated tests are often built into the software during (or preceding) coding of the
application.
9) It's easy to get caught up in enthusiasm for the 'silver bullet' of test automation, where
the dream is that a single mouse click can initialize thorough unattended testing of an
entire software application, bugs will be automatically reported, and easy-to-understand
summary reports will be waiting in the manager's in-box in the morning.

Although that may in fact be possible in some situations, it is not the way things
generally play out.

In manual testing, the test engineer exercises software functionality to determine if the
software is behaving in an expected way. This means that the tester must be able to
judge what the expected outcome of a test should be, such as expected data outputs,
screen messages, changes in the appearance of a User Interface, XML files, database
changes, etc. In an automated test, the computer does not have human-like 'judgement'
capabilities to determine whether or not a test outcome was correct. This means there
must be a mechanism by which the computer can do an automatic comparison between
actual and expected results for every automated test scenario and unambiguously make
a pass or fail determination. This factor may require a significant change in the entire
approach to testing, since in manual testing a human is involved and can:

 make mental adjustments to expected test results based on variations in the

pre-test state of the software system
 often make on-the-fly adjustments, if needed, to data used in the test
 make pass/fail judgements about results of each test
 make quick judgements and adjustments for changes to requirements.
 make a wide variety of other types of judgements and adjustments as needed.

For those new to test automation, it might be a good idea to do some reading or training
first. There are a variety of ways to go about doing this; some example approaches are:

 Obtain some test tool trial versions or low cost or open source test tools and
experiment with them
 Attend software testing conferences or training courses related to test
automation

As in anything else, proper planning and analysis are critical to success in choosing and
utilizing an automated test tool. Choosing a test tool just for the purpose of 'automating
testing' is not useful; useful purposes might include: testing more thoroughly, testing in
ways that were not previously feasible via manual methods (such as load testing),
testing faster, or reducing excessively tedious manual testing. Automated testing rarely
enables savings in the cost of testing, although it may result in software lifecycle
savings (or increased sales) just as with any other quality-related initiative.
With the proper background and understanding of test automation, the following
considerations can be helpful in choosing a test tool (automated testing will not
necessarily resolve them, they are only considerations for automation potential):

 Analyze the current non-automated testing situation to determine where testing

is not being done or does not appear to be sufficient
 Where is current testing excessively time-consuming?
 Where is current testing excessively tedious?
 What kinds of problems are repeatedly missed with current testing?
 What testing procedures are carried out repeatedly (such as regression testing
or security testing)?
 What testing procedures are not being carried out repeatedly but should be?
 What test tracking and management processes can be implemented or made
more effective through the use of an automated test tool?

Taking into account the testing needs determined by analysis of these considerations
and other appropriate factors, the types of desired test tools can be determined. For
each type of test tool (such as functional test tool, load test tool, etc.) the choices can be
further narrowed based on the characteristics of the software application. The relevant
characteristics will depend, of course, on the situation and the type of test tool and other
factors. Such characteristics could include the operating system, GUI components,
development languages, web server type, etc. Other factors affecting a choice could
include experience level and capabilities of test personnel, advantages/disadvantages
in developing a custom automated test tool, tool costs, tool quality and ease of use,
usefulness of the tool on other projects, etc.

Once a short list of potential test tools is selected, several can be utilized on a trial basis
for a final determination. Any expensive test tool should be thoroughly analyzed during
its trial period to ensure that it is appropriate and that it's capabilities and limitations are
well understood. This may require significant time or training, but the alternative is to
take a major risk of a mistaken investment.

10) This is a difficult question in that it typically involves tradeoffs between 'better' test
environments and cost. The ultimate situation would be a collection of test environments
that mimic exactly all possible hardware, software, network, data, and usage
characteristics of the expected live environments in which the software will be used. For
many software applications, this would involve a nearly infinite number of variations,
and would clearly be impossible. And for new software applications, it may also be
impossible to predict all the variations in environments in which the application will run.
For very large, complex systems, duplication of a 'live' type of environment may be
prohibitively expensive.
In reality judgements must be made as to which characteristics of a software application
environment are important, and test environments can be selected on that basis after
taking into account time, budget, and logistical constraints. Such judgements are
preferably made by those who have the most appropriate technical knowledge and
experience, along with an understanding of risks and constraints.

For smaller or low risk projects, an informal approach is common, but for larger or
higher risk projects (in terms of money, property, or lives) a more formalized process
involving multiple personnel and significant effort and expense may be appropriate.

In some situations it may be possible to mitigate the need for maintenance of large
numbers of varied test environments. One approach might be to coordinate internal
testing with beta testing efforts. Another possible mitigation approach is to provide built-
in automated tests that run automatically upon installation of the application by end-
users. These tests might then automatically report back information, via the internet,
about the application environment and problems encountered. Another possibility is the
use of virtual environments instead of physical test environments, using such tools as
VMWare or VirtualBox.

11) There is no simple answer for this. The 'best approach' is highly dependent on the
particular organization and project and the experience of the personnel involved.

For example, given two software projects of similar complexity and size, the appropriate
test effort for one project might be very large if it was for life-critical medical equipment
software, but might be much smaller for the other project if it was for a low-cost
computer game. A test estimation approach that only considered size and complexity
might be appropriate for one project but not for the other.

Following are some approaches to consider:

Implicit Risk Context Approach:

A typical approach to test estimation is for a project manager or QA manager to
implicitly use risk context, in combination with past personal experiences in the
organization, to choose a level of resources to allocate to testing. In many
organizations, the 'risk context' is assumed to be similar from one project to the next, so
there is no explicit consideration of risk context. (Risk context might include factors such
as the organization's typical software quality levels, the software's intended use, the
experience level of developers and testers, etc.) This is essentially an intuitive guess
based on experience.

Metrics-Based Approach:
A useful approach is to track past experience of an organization's various projects and
the associated test effort that worked well for projects. Once there is a set of data
covering characteristics for a reasonable number of projects, then this 'past experience'
information can be used for future test project planning. (Determining and collecting
useful project metrics over time can be an extremely difficult task.) For each particular
new project, the 'expected' required test time can be adjusted based on whatever
metrics or other information is available, such as function point count, number of
external system interfaces, unit testing done by developers, risk levels of the project,
etc. In the end, this is essentially 'judgement based on documented experience', and is
not easy to do successfully.

Test Work Breakdown Approach:

Another common approach is to decompose the expected testing tasks into a collection
of small tasks for which estimates can, at least in theory, be made with reasonable
accuracy. This of course assumes that an accurate and predictable breakdown of
testing tasks and their estimated effort is feasible. In many large projects, this is not the
case. For example, if a large number of bugs are being found in a project, this will add
to the time required for testing, retesting, bug analysis and reporting. It will also add to
the time required for development, and if development schedules and efforts do not go
as planned, this will further impact testing.

Iterative Approach:
In this approach for large test efforts, an initial rough testing estimate is made. Once
testing begins, a more refined estimate is made after a small percentage (eg, 1%) of the
first estimate's work is done. At this point testers have obtained additional test project
knowledge and a better understanding of issues, general software quality, and risk. Test
plans and schedules can be refactored if necessary and a new estimate provided. Then
a yet-more-refined estimate is made after a somewhat larger percentage (eg, 2%) of the
new work estimate is done. Repeat the cycle as necessary/appropriate.

Percentage-of-Development Approach:
Some organizations utilize a quick estimation method for testing based on the estimated
programming effort. For example, if a project is estimated to require 1000 hours of
programming effort, and the organization normally finds that a 40% ratio for testing is
appropriate, then an estimate of 400 hours for testing would be used. This approach
may or may not be useful depending on the project-to-project variations in risk,
personnel, types of applications, levels of complexity, etc.

Successful test estimation is a challenge for most organizations, since few can
accurately estimate software project development efforts, much less the testing effort of
a project. It is also difficult to attempt testing estimates without first having detailed
information about a project, including detailed requirements, the organization's
experience with similar projects in the past, and an understanding of what should be
included in a 'testing' estimation for a project (functional testing? unit testing? reviews?
inspections? load testing? security testing?)

With agile software development approaches, test effort estimations may be

unnecessary if pure test-driven development is utilized. However, it is not uncommon to
have a mix of some automated positive-type unit tests, along with some type of
separate manual or automated functional testing. In general, agile-based projects by
their nature will not be heavily dependent on large one-shot testing efforts, since they
emphasize the construction of releasable software in very short iteration cycles. These
smaller multiple test effort estimates may not be as difficult to estimate and the impact
of inaccurate estimates will be less severe.

For an interesting view of the problem of test estimation, see the comments on Martin
Fowler's web site indicating that, for many large systems, "testing and debugging is
impossible to schedule".