• Author
  • #4240

    Hi, this is the discussion forum following the webinar ‘The Core of Testing’.
    I hope you will join the discussion with comments and experiences and questions..

    There is one thing I need to say: I’ll not join as discussion as to whether the ISO 29119 should exist or not. To me it is one of voices in the constantly changing and growing choir about testing, and in that choir we should respect each other and allow all kinds of voices to chip in.

    Looking forward to ‘talking’ to you.
    Anne Mette

    You can view the slides & webinar recording Here


    Seconded, Anne Mette! I think it’s important to say that. Despite everything that’s been said about ISO 29119, and regardless of my feelings towards it, I owe it to myself to better understand what it’s proposing. I’m looking forward to hearing your insight, and I hope that everybody else is equally as grateful that you’re taking the time to present this today.


    Why is Anne Mette Hass listed as affiliated to KOMBIT on http://www.softwaretestingstandard.org/aboutWG26.php and NNIT on the webinar?


    Isn’t static testing, generally more of a Developer concern? Static Testing is often done in the form of peer or formal code review, unit testing, and static analysis by a host of tools that can be run in your CI environment with each build? Why is this a concern of testers?


    Does ISO 29119 say “never ever use the code as a test basis?”

    I do use the code to inform my testing. A reading of the code can make me think of risks that I then use to test e.g. this code looks inefficient I can use tests to explore this, and this code looks like it block other code so perhaps multiple users aren’t supported, or this code doesn’t look thread safe so might not handle multiple users etc.

    Why exclude some valuable sources of information from your testing?


    So, is Paul Gerard’s test design model part of ISO 29119 now, or are you referring to a non-compliant model?


    a feature set is a logical subset of the test item => What is a logical subset?


    How many test cases? Why is that even a valid metric? It’s been debunked so many times I would have thought we as a community had moved on from it.


    Here is a question by Iain McCowatt, who for some reason is excluded from this chat:

    The JTC1 proposal that initiated the standard indicated two markets for the standards: 1) contract writers 2) certification writers. What is the motivation behind the standard? Who is it aimed at?


    last I checked, a lot if not all of these ‘coverage’ metrics you’ve mentioned can be garnered from CI environments automatically using tools. Why is this a testing concern? Why is this part of the ISO 29119 Standard?


    Regarding the “test condition” nomenclature, what’s the difference between function, feature, transaction etc?


    Exploratory testing -> “You can go on and on and on”. It appears to me you have not really put your attention to exploratory testing in any way? It appears to me you have an incredibly shallow view on what it is. Can you point to sources you used for ISO 29119 to include exploratory testing?


    Another one from Iain:

    What research (other than Kasurinen’s study, which has been misquoted and has threats to its validity) has been conducted into the efficacy of 29119? Or indeed into its side effects?


    More generally, why does the standard introduce a substantial amount of terminology – “test basis”, “test condition”, “test converage item” – in addition to the more familiar “test case” – which, as Anne-Mette noted during the Webinar, is likely to be unfamiliar to most people (and so, arguably, “non standard”)?

    What is the added value of this complex ontology and terminology?


    One more from Iain:

    if you won’t answer questions as to the validity of the ‘standard’, who will? To whom is ISO accountable?


    Why is repeatability of a test important? Won’t this leave gaps in testing, because you reduce variation of inputs?


    Seriously, Do we need a webinar for this? => From the Testers at my client


    Early on in the webinar, it was asserted that it was not mandatory to record in writing the various information items produced.

    This statement seems at odds with the repeated emphasis, including at a very fine level of detail in the dynamic test process, on having the various information items “agreed by the stakeholders”.

    Why is the standard so insistent on having “sign off” on things like the “test design specification”, which should be no one’s business but the tester’s? Why is the standard simultaneously so vague on defining who is referred to as “the stakeholders” in these various sections?


    What is your definition of “structured” and how do you relate your model of it to exploratory testing, which you call “unstructured”? Could it be that you do not recognize or know about the structure of exploratory testing? And if so, how does WG26 account for that shortcoming?


    Second the question on “never use the code as test basis” question. Is this proscription part of the standard or merely personal prejudice?


    I am offended that the webinar is used to plug a book.


    Can’t say I’m surprised


    How does ISO 29119 help improve the quality of testing?


    What if the team isn’t using structured design principles? What if they use Object Oriented Design, Emergent Design, Lean Principles, Agile, Scrum, Kanban? In many of these environments the specifics are never known till someone discoversthem.?


    thank you!
    now I’m even more convinced in my join to Professional Tester Manifesto.



    The webinar made ISO 29119 seem very rigid and not applicable to any of the recent projects that I have worked on, without incurring a massive cost to the project.

    Are there any free excerpts from the standard available which describe the flexibility that the standard allows in its application such that a ‘flexible’ test process can still be classified as compliant with the standard.


    So many mis-steps in this I don’t know where to begin! I’ll pick two from one slide:

    “Don’t make a false start – check the start criteria” – does anybody EVER get start criteria met these days? Does anybody get thanked for not starting testing until 100% ready? Surely successful testers are pragmatists who start as soon as possible having discussed the current state with developers?

    “The tests should be exactly repeatable for retesting and regression testing” – should read “the tests should be exactly repeatable for waste and more waste”.

    This is a backward step for software testing.


    Will Ms Hass address any of the contributions and questions here or does it all fall in the category “Thou shalt not question the standard”?


    How much time does it take from the start of collecting the”test basis” to the execution of the first test following the information (i.e. dynamic testing) given in this presentation.?


    Is there any evidence for how this helps improve the quality of testing, or how it helps testing meet the Business goals. Is there any evidence from multiple sources as to how this has been successfully implemented into different organisations, different cultures, different project lifecycles – differing contexts if you like?

1 2 3
Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 77 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.