• Author
    Posts
  • #4330
    @annemettehass

    Laurent Bossavit
    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?

    AM:
    It is not every tiny bit of you work that the standard suggest that you should get stakeholder agree on – as far as I remember, it is the final test specification, i.e. the test procedures. An even those may be agreed on only by discussing them, though that is perhaps not so easy.

    Wrt. stakeholder stakeholders are defined as anybody who will be affected or affect the system (from my memory). The standard tries to be context driven, by not stating who the stakeholdes are, but making it depend on the context.

    #4331
    @simonsaysnomore

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

    – See more at: https://huddle.eurostarsoftwaretesting.com/forums/topic/the-core-of-testing-webinar/#sthash.dzMy3VxF.dpuf

    AM:
    There are so many things in this world we don’t need, but that others might find useful.

    – See more at: https://huddle.eurostarsoftwaretesting.com/forums/topic/the-core-of-testing-webinar/page/3/#sthash.OGjmohV8.dpuf

    This was a serious reaction of four testers who take their craft seriously and saw a webinar that was “explaining” how to test in a certain way. Something we already do for years. We did not see something new, something innovating. What is ISO29119 bringing to us?

    #4333
    @laurent-bossavit

    Following up on the question about “signing off”:

    “It is not every tiny bit of you work that the standard suggest that you should get stakeholder agree on – as far as I remember, it is the final test specification, i.e. the test procedures.”

    I’m afraid you are remembering incorrectly. The standard mandates (“shall” statement, except where noted) that “the stakeholders” agree on:
    – the composition and prioritization of feature sets (“should”)
    – the test design specification
    – the test case specification
    – the test procedure specification

    And this is ONLY for the “test design process”. Further sub-processes of the dynamic testing process require even more communication with “the stakeholders” (still vaguely defined).

    “stakeholders are defined as anybody who will be affected or affect the system (from my memory). The standard tries to be context driven, by not stating who the stakeholdes are, but making it depend on the context.”

    For any non-trivial system, this will represent a very substantial amount of people. In particular, when you say:

    “those may be agreed on only by discussing them, though that is perhaps not so easy.”

    I’d agree with you on “not so easy”!

    Even *discussing* your test design specification with all of the people “who will be affected or affect the system” would probably take up all of a tester’s time, if it was possible at all. And discussing certainly is a prerequisite to having a specific item “approved”.

    It is important to remember that ISO 29119 is (except for part 1) a normative standard, that is, you can only claim “compliance” with the standard if you are able to demonstrate that your testing conforms to all of the “shall statements” in the standard text.

    In most situations, you are not able to “demonstrate” to an auditor who visits you after the fact that you’ve had a discussion with someone. So, the written form tends to be a practical (if not a theoretical) requirement of any ISO compliance audit.

    The conclusion seems inevitable that sincere compliance with ISO 29119 will impose a great documentation overhead on any “agile” testing efforts.

    #4334
    @alexei-vinogradov

    Silly question. How can I join the webinar? I have not got any link to it after registering….

    #4335
    @alexei-vinogradov

    O.K. Just found it here: https://huddle.eurostarsoftwaretesting.com/resource/the-core-of-testing-dynamic-testing-process-according-to-iso-29119/
    It’s kind of webinar as recording? I see…

    #4336
    @laurent-bossavit

    “If you get the impression that the activities are rigid, I’m afraid you have not heard everything I said. I said, several times, that this is not about doing things in a specific order, or making documentation […]Try to get the perspective right here, please.”

    This isn’t a matter of “perspective”. It’s a matter of verifiable fact that, even if the standard itself allows for tailoring and does not mandate filling out every small item, *users* of the standard may be encouraged, simply because of the exhaustive level of detail at which the contents of the normative “information items” are described, to touch all the bases, as it were, and always document everything that is mentioned in the standard.

    By way of an example, I encourage you to read the following document, which “maps” the 29119 standard to the internal policies of a large governmental organization:

    http://www.asa.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/asa/asa-standards/t-mu-te-81003-st.pdf

    Even though “feature sets”, for instance, are an optional element in ISO 29119 (“should” statement) the mapping in this organization makes it mandatory (maps to a “shall”) for all projects other than low-risk.

    Ironically, for low-risk projects some of the tailorings go in the “wrong” direction from my perspective: the mapping makes “Identify Lessons Learned” a N/A (not required) activity for low-risk projects. Well, that’s a great way to turn them into medium-risk projects, so at least that problem is self-correcting.

    Another thing to notice is how documentation breeds documentation. In order to do your job well at this organization, people now have to consult two documents, the “mapping” and the ISO standard itself.

    When I came across the PDF above, my reaction was “behold, the monster they created”.

    Condescending appeals to “get the perspective right” will not absolve you of the responsibility for creating the monster. It has escaped your control already, it is harming innocent projects. You can say that your intentions were pure, but that will not change the consequences.

    #4337
    @ilarihenrik

    Will Ms Hass answer any of the ISST board member questions, or continue to systematically ignore them?

    #4339
    @veretax

    Tim Western
    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?

    AM:
    I don’t know what ‘garnered’ and CI environments mean, but surely coverage is a testing concern, since it, to my knowledge, is the only measure we have to the thoroughness of test. But if you know others, I’ll love to hear about them.

    – See more at: https://huddle.eurostarsoftwaretesting.com/forums/topic/the-core-of-testing-webinar/page/3/#sthash.ALFX7jEy.dpuf

    I can see i wasn’t very clear. I was referring to CI = Continuous Integration environments, which are the standard in the industry now. Many of them have the ability to provide code coverage guidance, where there is automated checks going on (such as with unit tests, and so forth) I agree that coverage is a ‘testing’ concern, I think I misunderstood what you were saying about the importance of coverage, which IMO is only important in that it can help you focus what you test. If you have non automated testing going on, that testing can be enhanced by knowing the coverage model provided by what the developers have already written.

    So, I realize now, that there’s two different ways of describing coverage, that for what’s covered by test ‘code’, and what individuals have to perform. I apologize for the ambiguity.

    #4341
    @annemettehass

    Peter

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

    AM:
    There are so many things in this world we don’t need, but that others might find useful.

    This was a serious reaction of four testers who take their craft seriously and saw a webinar that was “explaining” how to test in a certain way. Something we already do for years. We did not see something new, something innovating. What is ISO29119 bringing to us?

    AM: If you have done like this for years, you are right that you don’t need the webinar.

    #4342
    @annemettehass

    Peter https://huddle.eurostarsoftwaretesting.com/members/simonsaysnomore/

    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.?

    AM:
    Sometimes it takes a few minutes sometimes more; it all depends on the nature of the test basis.

    #4343
    @annemettehass

    Karen

    Hello Anne –

    I read your comment about not wanting to question 29119 in this forum, ok. But I do want to ask (and I believe this is one point to the discussion), can you share:

    1. How does 29119 help you? I did not see or hear a direct correlation to 29119. Perhaps the correlation is implicit to you and that is understandable if you work with it and are involved in its foundation and formation – but I am not – I would like you to draw an explicit correlation to your test process as outlined and how 29119 helps guide the process.

    thank you,
    Karen N. Johnson

    AM:
    I’m not sure what you mean by ‘correlation’, the process I outlined is as it is described in ISO 29119, and it helped me get a stepwise approach to getting from the test basis to the test cases. It also helps me to be able to explain to others how I end up with the test cases I end up with.

    #4350
    @ronan

    For those of you that would like to continue discussing the ISO standards generally, there is a separate thread dedicated to it on this forum here.

    #4355

    Pia
    @danpia

    Hi Anne Mette

    Is or will the presentation be available for download ?

    🙂
    Pia

    #4356
    @ronan

    Hi @pia

    The link to view the webinar is here. Generally presentations on TEST Huddle are not available to download. That is the discretion of the presenter though.

    #4387

    Pia
    @danpia

    Hi @ronan

    Thank U very much

    🙂
    Pia

    #4397
    @eetester

    I’m little confused , why to be not aligned with ISTQB Scheme , why to ignore some other points like TPI ,TMMI in process improvements
    also ,it doesn’t fit the real testing life which is always under pressure because of the speed of development cycle !!!!

    #4425
    @annemettehass

    Mohamed
    I’m little confused , why to be not aligned with ISTQB Scheme , why to ignore some other points like TPI ,TMMI in process improvements
    also ,it doesn’t fit the real testing life which is always under pressure because of the speed of development cycle !!!!
    .

    We cannot do much concerning management’s or our own uge to speed – that is a different issue.

    The ISO standard is influenced by ISTQB, and as aligned as it can be to a set of syllabi that is not necessarily internally consistent. It is also influenced by a lot of other testing knowledge, but not directly aligned with TPI that is privately owned.

    Best regards
    Anne Mette

1 2 3
Viewing 17 posts - 61 through 77 (of 77 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.