• Author
  • #9586

    So a few weeks ago we had a long debate on Test Huddle on the Checking Vs Testing model of testing. More specifically on difference between checking and testing.

    Recently Paul Gerrard published a “A New Model of Testing” and has followed up that with a blog post on the difference between the New Model and the Testing V Checking (TvC) model.

    He cites reasons why he disagrees with the TvC model but his main argument is:

    “Perhaps the most prominent argument against the testing v checking split is the notion that somehow testing (if it is simply their label for what I call exploration) and checking are alternatives. The sidelining of checking as something less valuable, intellectual or effective doesn’t match experience. The New Model reflects this in that the tester explores sources of information to create models that inform testing.”

    From what I understand, Paul believes that checking should be as valued as much as testing in exploratory and that the New Model focused more on the skills and role of the tester than the process.

    What do you think of these arguments? Would you agree with them? Do you thinking checking and testing should be valued as the same or different?


    I find it hard to believe that this is a real argument. It’s like big-endians v little-endians.

    In fact, no. It’s precisely like the difference between cooking and weighing your ingredients. Or between selecting a product in the shops and counting your change after you’ve bought it.

    One is an intellectual(!?) activity which more or less depends upon a multitude of less intellectual tasks. The other is one of those tasks.

    Testing without checking is called “going home early”. Checking without testing is called “taking a screenshot”.

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.