This just gets more amusing...

I sent them a reply saying that we need to replace a whole heap of 
desktops, but the servers are pretty much OK. I got a reply saying 
they're going to look at getting me some newer servers in the next few 
months. (But nobody is going to do anything about the desktops.)

Am I missing something obvious here??

Post a reply to this message

Kyle <hob### [at] gatenet> wrote:
> >Are you the White Rabbit?
>
> No.  This is...
>
> http://www.jobsearch.co.uk/

LOL

Take the hint, Andrew :)

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Kyle <hob### [at] gatenet> wrote:
>>> Are you the White Rabbit?
>> No.  This is...
>>
>> http://www.jobsearch.co.uk/
> 
> LOL
> 
> Take the hint, Andrew :)

Heh. Well, I have actually tried that particular site before and not 
found anything of any use. But I certainly get the hint...

(Today I'm writing an unecessarily long and complex plan document 
describing in absurd detail how we're going to test a trivial 2-page 
Haskell program. I really wish to God I was working somewhere else right 
now!)

Post a reply to this message

> This just gets more amusing...
>
> I sent them a reply saying that we need to replace a whole heap of 
> desktops, but the servers are pretty much OK. I got a reply saying they're 
> going to look at getting me some newer servers in the next few months. 
> (But nobody is going to do anything about the desktops.)
>
> Am I missing something obvious here??

Yeh, I wouldn't miss the opportunity for a clever reply with your boss and 
their boss cc'd :-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Kyle <hob### [at] gatenet> wrote:
>>>> Are you the White Rabbit?
>>> No.  This is...
>>>
>>> http://www.jobsearch.co.uk/
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> Take the hint, Andrew :)
> 
> Heh. Well, I have actually tried that particular site before and not 
> found anything of any use. But I certainly get the hint...
> 
> (Today I'm writing an unecessarily long and complex plan document 
> describing in absurd detail how we're going to test a trivial 2-page 
> Haskell program. I really wish to God I was working somewhere else right 
> now!)


Isn't it amazing how the things we enjoy can become such a thorn.


Tom

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
> > Kyle <hob### [at] gatenet> wrote:
> >>> Are you the White Rabbit?
> >> No.  This is...
> >>
> >> http://www.jobsearch.co.uk/
> >
> > LOL
> >
> > Take the hint, Andrew :)
>
> Heh. Well, I have actually tried that particular site before and not
> found anything of any use. But I certainly get the hint...
>
> (Today I'm writing an unecessarily long and complex plan document
> describing in absurd detail how we're going to test a trivial 2-page
> Haskell program. I really wish to God I was working somewhere else right
> now!)

You can generally shorten test scripts by using a spreadsheet or a table with a
layout that details:
Test Step |Test action & Instruction(s) | Field/Variable data / input | Expected
Results | Output | Passed/Failed

Of course you modify the script to suit the tests.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> (Today I'm writing an unecessarily long and complex plan document
>> describing in absurd detail how we're going to test a trivial 2-page
>> Haskell program. I really wish to God I was working somewhere else right
>> now!)
> 
> You can generally shorten test scripts by using a spreadsheet or a table with a
> layout that details:
> Test Step |Test action & Instruction(s) | Field/Variable data / input | Expected
> Results | Output | Passed/Failed
> 
> Of course you modify the script to suit the tests.

Well, let's put it this way: The plan is 17 pages long, and I haven't 
even said what the tests are yet! o_O

Basically there's a standard template for writing test plans. It's 
designed for huge complex systems, and the thing I'm testing is tiny. So 
I've already spend ages deleting all the stuff that's not applicable. 
And it's *still* 17 pages of whaffle.

(This is who we are, this is what the software is, this is were it's 
going to be used, this is who is going to use it, this is who will test 
it, this is what the software is for, this is what we do currently, this 
is why software testing is necessary, this is what the tests attempt to 
demonstrate, this is all the things the testing won't cover, this is 
what we'll do if any tests fail, this is what we'll do if we ever alter 
the software, this is the list of documents that will be produced during 
the test process, etc.)

Believe it or not, that bundle I just wrote there? It's incomplete. (!)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
> > Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> (Today I'm writing an unecessarily long and complex plan document
> >> describing in absurd detail how we're going to test a trivial 2-page
> >> Haskell program. I really wish to God I was working somewhere else right
> >> now!)
> >
> > You can generally shorten test scripts by using a spreadsheet or a table with a
> > layout that details:
> > Test Step |Test action & Instruction(s) | Field/Variable data / input | Expected
> > Results | Output | Passed/Failed
> >
> > Of course you modify the script to suit the tests.
>
> Well, let's put it this way: The plan is 17 pages long, and I haven't
> even said what the tests are yet! o_O
>
> Basically there's a standard template for writing test plans. It's
> designed for huge complex systems, and the thing I'm testing is tiny. So
> I've already spend ages deleting all the stuff that's not applicable.
> And it's *still* 17 pages of whaffle.
>
> (This is who we are, this is what the software is, this is were it's
> going to be used, this is who is going to use it, this is who will test
> it, this is what the software is for, this is what we do currently, this
> is why software testing is necessary, this is what the tests attempt to
> demonstrate, this is all the things the testing won't cover, this is
> what we'll do if any tests fail, this is what we'll do if we ever alter
> the software, this is the list of documents that will be produced during
> the test process, etc.)
>
> Believe it or not, that bundle I just wrote there? It's incomplete. (!)

Right! As if anyone ever reads that. I know the sort of template you mean.
Here we have to write design documents about what we are going to do before we
do it and get it authorised by QA. But if there is even a minor change then the
doc has to be re-evaluated and all work on it stops until it goes to the next
status. That sounds fine until you realise that most configure-ers are allowed
to prototype before submitting the design to QA.
Hint, put in a deliberate mistake that you can take out to keep QA happy :)



Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Well, let's put it this way: The plan is 17 pages long, and I haven't
>> even said what the tests are yet! o_O
>>
>> Basically there's a standard template for writing test plans. It's
>> designed for huge complex systems, and the thing I'm testing is tiny. So
>> I've already spend ages deleting all the stuff that's not applicable.
>> And it's *still* 17 pages of whaffle.
>>
>> (This is who we are, this is what the software is, this is were it's
>> going to be used, this is who is going to use it, this is who will test
>> it, this is what the software is for, this is what we do currently, this
>> is why software testing is necessary, this is what the tests attempt to
>> demonstrate, this is all the things the testing won't cover, this is
>> what we'll do if any tests fail, this is what we'll do if we ever alter
>> the software, this is the list of documents that will be produced during
>> the test process, etc.)
>>
>> Believe it or not, that bundle I just wrote there? It's incomplete. (!)
> 
> Right! As if anyone ever reads that.

Trust me, QA does. :-S (And usually they manage to find some minor typo 
somewhere so they can reject the entire document and make me resubmit it 
all over again. Or perhaps just complain I used the wrong size 
paperclips...)

> I know the sort of template you mean.
> Here we have to write design documents about what we are going to do before we
> do it and get it authorised by QA. But if there is even a minor change then the
> doc has to be re-evaluated and all work on it stops until it goes to the next
> status.

Fun, isn't it?

Oh, did I mention? The actual *testing* needs to happen before 1 Dec 
2007. No pressure or anything. I've never actually written a full test 
document for software before, but now's a fine time to learn. :-S

> Hint, put in a deliberate mistake that you can take out to keep QA happy :)

Yeah. I am *so* not trying that...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> Fun, isn't it?
> 
> Oh, did I mention? The actual *testing* needs to happen before 1 Dec 
> 2007. No pressure or anything. I've never actually written a full test 
> document for software before, but now's a fine time to learn. :-S

Damnit, Benny was right - I *don't* get paid enough for this stuff! :-P

Post a reply to this message