Imagine this...
You've got a test script....your supposed to follow it but you don't.....well you do but you do other stuff in between.....well designing, learning and executing?
Right...So you can do exploratory testing with a script can't you? I don't think anyone has said you can't...I just think this point get's lost in the debate sometimes...(is it because it's bad?)
When I started out in testing, scripted tests were 'all the rage'. (yes I know some of you weren't using scripts way back in 1983 and earlier) They were test cases generated with templates. Well anyway, even though I might be following a script I still used to deviate from it (well actually I usually totally forgot about the script deviated and then went back to it.)
What am I trying to say? Well even though I may have used a scripted test case, to me I think it was just a 'trigger' to find out more, probably when I noticed things. It may have been a narrow trigger however.
When I was following a test script....it did take me a lot longer to complete it....because I was interested in other stuff (that wasn't in the script) that may have been happening in the System under test.
So what is that hybrid? Is it a hybrid? Is that a check and a test? or a Ch-est-eck? Does anybody care?
Well this can become a minefield can't it?
Ok, so what happens if I find something that wasn't on the script? An issue? How does that work because I shouldn't have found it really.
(Note I used the word issue. I like to use the word issue as anything I find might not necessarily be defect - another blog post looms)
Well for me, I just raised them, an issue, is an issue, is an issue important to someone right?
Ok, Do I now have to retrofit the script to include anything that I did that wasn't previously on it? That could be a lot of work especially if I find a lot of issues. If I then ran it again, (if I would want to) and went off-script again it could mean more work...
hmm..maybe I've now convinced myself that there should be a seperation of Checks and Tests?
I think I kind of morphed from test case scripts to test triggers, and I'm now quite fond of test sessions that may use triggers which I may use as a basis (but not bound by) of exploring in that session.
Is anybody doing Scriplory? or Checkest? or Chestesk?
How is that going?
Good post. This is something I have been doing for many years too. I always used to get the details script and then explore based on what the script was aiming to achieve.
ReplyDeleteI now don't write detailed scripts and instead write high level guidance tests which include pointers and directors which guide my testing, but do not control it.
Anything that is pure exploratory is contained in a break out test artefact where I log the charter, outcomes, steps etc and also attach logs and http request information etc...
Seems to work well for me, but many testers have their own way of working that suites their style.
Rob..
Hi Rob,
ReplyDeleteThanks. It sounds like you are doing similar things to me. I just heard about a testers 'playbook', perhaps we also doing that?
Peter