tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8951904624959546499.post7975971391800892726..comments2009-07-06T12:40:09.364-04:00Eric Jacobsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08216361684596485033noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8951904624959546499.post-42247959175350406112009-06-30T11:56:53.553-04:002009-06-30T11:56:53.553-04:00I will never have everything automated, but I will be testing more than if I didn&#39;t automate. Testing has to be a team responsibility. That means testers need to partner with developers to get the tests written. This is sakthi from www.macrotesting.com I really like the way you have posted this topic its really a nice Article. Thank you....<br /><br />cheers <br />sakthisakthihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01912717227166527916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8951904624959546499.post-52250216760802647692009-06-09T13:08:18.463-04:002009-06-09T13:08:18.463-04:00Marlena,<br /><br />Here is what I wonder...<br /><br />Your model is great now. But doesn&#39;t it seem like the more automated tests you have, the more maintenance it will take each iteration (no matter how efficient your framework)? Eventually you&#39;ll either have to stop using certain tests or stop writing as many new ones...right?Eric Jacobsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08216361684596485033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8951904624959546499.post-43831175619783422602009-06-04T22:04:55.189-04:002009-06-04T22:04:55.189-04:00As you suggest, complete regression testing is impossible. Pop open Task Manager, and have a look at the processes running on your machine. It&#39;ll never again be the same as it is now. So even if it were necessary, we couldn&#39;t achieve it.<br /><br />Part of my take on the issue is <a href="http://www.developsense.com/articles/One%20Step%20Back,%20Two%20Steps%20Forward%20(9-2).pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Another part is that testing is always a sampling exercise. To cover the program well, our samples should be broad, biased towards risk, recent changes, and real-world operation.<br /><br />A lot of the testing literature concentrates on focusing heuristics. That can be valuable, but we also have to mix things up with some tests that <i>aren&#39;t</i> focused on a particular use case or a particular requirement or a particular risk. That&#39;s how we find out about new problems, even as we&#39;re aware of old ones.<br /><br />One approach to that is to <i>use the product</i>, behaving as real, variable, people with work to do. I have strong reason to believe that far too few testers do that. How do I justify the belief? Don&#39;t we all have the experience of using products that display prominent bugs the first time we use them ourselves?<br /><br />---Michael B.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09027725699187903416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8951904624959546499.post-62527121466324250732009-06-04T19:07:47.373-04:002009-06-04T19:07:47.373-04:00One way of doing it is a so-called light regression test (LRT) - this can be quantified as the most valuable/important tests that should pass per iteration. This sub-set can be derived by a combination of risk-based techniques, coverage and even time-execution based.<br /><br />The key is the selection should not be static - ie feedback and periodic review. In addition, it should be supplemented with a strategy to cover all (or x%) of your test base over y cycles/iterations. This way you get the minimum regression subset (best bang for the buck) and the back-up of a cycling through the test base. <br /><br />Depending on customer release schedules a run-through of a larger/wider/whole selection of the regression test base can be made for the &quot;release&quot; build.<br /><br />I&#39;m currently looking at alternatives for constructing algorithms for this feedback process - ie modifying the LRT based on the last results, bug reports/FST and ongoing development...Simon Morleyhttp://testers-headache.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8951904624959546499.post-85957680463799101252009-06-04T16:17:08.124-04:002009-06-04T16:17:08.124-04:00I am the only tester in my group, and I&#39;m automating as much regression as possible. I asked my boss which tests he wanted to see automated first and added to that the tests I feel are particularly important or just plain annoying to run. <br /><br />You are right, I will never have everything automated, but I will be testing more than if I didn&#39;t automate. <br /><br />Building a framework that lets me add and run tests quickly has helped. Does require it&#39;s own maintenance, but OO design and lots of composition helps with this.Marlenahttp://marlenacompton.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8951904624959546499.post-82722862682297470192009-06-04T15:15:49.911-04:002009-06-04T15:15:49.911-04:00No, the testers can&#39;t do it all themselves. Testing has to be a team responsibility. That means testers need to partner with developers to get the tests written. <br />Otherwise, you either need a bunch more testers, or you just try to keep up as best you can.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07298916960841993037noreply@blogger.com