|
If I may be permitted one small (!) reply, as I don't want to be accused of turning this into a sales thread. I concur that macro record and playback can go part of the way toward testing - but then you have the issue of maintaining the macro when screens or fields change - an issue that most of the generic record and playback tools offer - are the users competent scripting language programmers? Also, and this applies to the parallel running situation, too; there is the need to verify the test results, and this is quite often where there is an disproportionate amount of time spent looking to find perhaps only a few, if any, errors, and then documenting them. We have published a white paper about our view to approaching testing and I am more than happy to send a copy to anyone who would like one - no sales follow up from me (promise!) Regards Jamie Coles Original Software ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Liotta" <qsrvbas@netscape.net> To: <midrange-l@midrange.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 2:16 AM Subject: Re: Test environments (was: upgrade) A couple generic comments in-line... midrange-l-request@midrange.com wrote: >From: "Jamie Coles" > > So the old tests have been recorded and can be played back whilst you record >new >ones, and then these get played back when you record the next set. For many basic tests, something as simple as a recorded ClientAccess macro could be used to automate testing. Not for everything, but for testing that each menu option actually invoked a program, that the logged-on user didn't run into authority errors, etc. Simple macro recording and playback isn't used nearly to full advantage for testing. With modification, the macros could be made very intelligent. Much of this only needs doing once. >One of the main problems with testing or running parallel with the old and the >new system is the extra amount of time needed to >check the test results. On contract, I rewrote a Local Improvement District billing application for a City a number of years ago. The IS manager resigned to take a better position towards the end of the project, just before full system testing began. The new manager insisted on full parallel testing until everything checked out in detail (which had much merit in concept) as the basis for "Acceptance". Because a reconciliation between old and new took major time for City staff and because LID billing was on a monthly cycle, parallel testing was a major problem. Surprise! The old and new didn't match by significant margins at many points. A few items were found easily by me and corrected in the new system, but major items remained that took a lot of detail checking over years of history. They started seeing that the big problems were mostly because the old system had always had major flaws that were never detected. So, the month would pass while reconciliation went on. A new month-end would arrive and a new parallel also. And corrections for old errors would allow new errors to be uncovered. After the first parallel, no significant errors were ever discovered in the new version; all were errors in the old. In one major case, an LID was found that had _NEVER_ been billed to the property owners for a number of years. You can imagine the political difficulties for the City in getting things current there. But the parallels continued to be mandated. Meanwhile, my contract payment is delayed for months awaiting "Acceptance". Ever since, I've been extremely leery of the value of parallel testing without clear guidelines. >Once an error has been spotted the next difficulty is providing the developer >with the actual scenario that led to the error being >created so that it can be replicated and then fixed - not always an easy task >- because us users never really know if we pressed >"enter" or "space" !! A very good point to bring up. Worth keeping in mind. We've all had users say "No, I'm _POSITIVE_ I hit <F16>, not <F4>." Automated testing bypasses this. Tom Liotta -- Tom Liotta The PowerTech Group, Inc. 19426 68th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Phone 253-872-7788 Fax 253-872-7904 http://www.powertechgroup.com __________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ _______________________________________________ This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.