Comments on: From the Mailbox: What's the Definition of Testing?

By: Muhammad Hammad Khan

Muhammad Hammad Khan — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 07:11:58 +0000

I agree with the defination provided by chris McMahon
Testing of systems can be of two types (i)Known System(ii)Unknon system
for known system “Testing is the process of taking series of measurements through certain systematic procedure and then comparing them to expected values” (to verify)
for unknown system “is the process of determining the mathematical model of a system by applying known input signals and then observing output response” (to determine the transfer function of the system)

By: Gieno

Gieno — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 04:15:30 +0000

Testing is done to find information.

By: Matthew Heusser

Matthew Heusser — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 12:30:37 +0000

Hey there. I think this is a great discussion Brian Marick recently wrote that: “I’m not convinced that automated business-facing (acceptance) tests are, in the presence of good programmer testing, all that incredibly useful as tests—as, that is, regression tests, tests that will find bugs created when a programmer changes something here that causes a failure over there.” (http://www.exampler.com/blog/2007/06/01/two-conference-ideas/)

He goes on to recommend other uses for customer facing acceptance tests, and they are interesting – but they aren’t really experiments designed to reveal information about the system type benefits, as much as documentation and communication type benefits.

Which leads me to think that we should stop calling them tests …

I don’t have any easy answer here, but I don’t think the vagaries and inconsistencies we have as a field about testing are doing us any favors. If we could just get a little more specific – not perfect, just slightly better terminology – I think as a field we could get a little more street cred. (You have to admit, testers are famous for our insecurity about our street cred when compared to, say, devs …)

By: Debasis Pradhan

Debasis Pradhan — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 13:27:15 +0000

I agree to your definition for testing. Personally, I follow James Bach’s and Cem Kaner’s definition for testing. But I must admit that I was equally impressed by your definitions too. I have written a whole new blog entry on the definition(s) of testing here: http://software-testing-zone.blogspot.com/2007/07/software-testing-definition.html , in case you might want to take a look!

Regards,
Debasis.

By: Vaibhav

Vaibhav — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:10:09 +0000

A test is to analyze the result of some activity with the clear cut defined expected result of the system under test. If I say I want to test for the cleanliness of the table, then I know what degree of cleanliness I want. Is it just the shine I want or Is it just want a clean table I want with no dust or paper on it. And how I perform a test is testing.
Test case is any case which contains test and the required environment, settings, tools to perform testing. Like for the table example if I say test is – just to verify whether the table is clean or not. But a test case would be to verify this with a magnifying glass, or with some clean cotton, under some set of conditions or some particular environment.

Vaibhav Agarwal
vaibhav@crestech.in
http://www.crestech.in

By: Jeff Fry

Jeff Fry — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:54:47 +0000

Hey Elisabeth, thanks for another great post!

I’ll add James Bach’s and Cem Kaner’s definitions from http://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/43

“Testing: questioning a product in order to evaluate it (Bach version); technical investigation of a product, on behalf of stakeholders, with the objective of exposing quality-related information of the kind they seek (Kaner version).”

I realized I had more to say about all this than would comfortably fit in this comment box so I have posted a longer reply here:
http://testingjeff.wordpress.com/2007/06/21/definitions-of-testing/

By: Shrini

Shrini — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:41:49 +0000

What about a testcase or test case then?

Is a test case (or it is testcase) an instance of test?
just as an example of a test?

Shrini

By: Shrini

Shrini — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:39:09 +0000

I attempted to do something like this here

http://shrinik.blogspot.com/2005/08/definitions-of-software-testing.html

For now, I settle to James Bach’s definition -
“Testing is an act of questioning a product in order to evaluate it”

or this one “Testing is an infinite process of comparing invisible to ambigious in order to avoid unthinkable happening to the annonymous”

Or this one – “Testing is a process of infinite search for problems”

Or Cem Kaner’s definition:
“Testing is an Empirical technical investigation done to provide stakeholders, information about quality of a product or a service.”

Shrini

By: B Kuhn

B Kuhn — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:53:27 +0000

I like you’re re-framed definition, along with the one that Chris offered. One thing I would add – testing is a vital part of the overall verification process. Do the results of the experiments (tests) match the specifications (design, requirements, etc…)? This is part of the answer that testing should provide. The majority (note that I’m not saying 100%) of our expectations as testers should be based on the specs.

Testing also provides valuable information to project management and stakeholders about the overall quality of the system, which is in turn used in decision making processes.

BTW – I just found your blog and I am enjoying the articles!

By: Jared

Jared — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 13:34:37 +0000

If I observe the product, but am never able to find out what the expectation should be, did I test it? If I leave my notes lying around, and months later someone else comes along who *does* have an expectation and knows what a good and bad result are, did *they* test it?