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

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>
> > 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...


better write the script as you are running a pre-test test.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4742b3d3@news.povray.org...

> Am I missing something obvious here??

There's budget in the pool allocated to servers, but none in the budget pool
allocated to desktops.

Try my place for size. Getting an additional 2 TB of storage added to the
SAN that's used by 3 servers is just a matter of sending an email to one
person. Is approved and will be available after the year end freeze ends.
However I've been trying, unsuccessfully, for 2 years to get an additional
40GB hard drive in my desktop.

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:4742b3d3@news.povray.org...
> 
>> Am I missing something obvious here??
> 
> There's budget in the pool allocated to servers, but none in the budget pool
> allocated to desktops.

Mmm, I think Gail has something here...

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:


> better write the script as you are running a pre-test test.

QA would go balistic... heh.

Mind you, it seems that over at HQ, they design and develop- wait, do 
they? Oh well, anyway, they develop the software, get some people to try 
it for a few months, check it does what they want, and *then* write a 
set of user requirements that exactly match the product they developed.

In other words, all their fancy high-end policy documents about 
"validation will encompass the entire product development lifecycle from 
initial requirements gathering through implementation to eventual 
retirement" is a complete fabrication.

If anyone in my class at uni did that, they got their work rejected. If 
the UK did that with something we developed, there would be an outcry. 
But for HQ, it's perfectly OK to completely disregard their own rules 
whenever it's not convinient to follow them any more.

These people make me sick...

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:4742b3d3@news.povray.org...
> 
>> Am I missing something obvious here??
> 
> There's budget in the pool allocated to servers, but none in the budget pool
> allocated to desktops.
> 
> Try my place for size. Getting an additional 2 TB of storage added to the
> SAN that's used by 3 servers is just a matter of sending an email to one
> person. Is approved and will be available after the year end freeze ends.
> However I've been trying, unsuccessfully, for 2 years to get an additional
> 40GB hard drive in my desktop.
> 
> 

That can be easy to solve.  Just have a few leftover HDs from a server 
upgrade.  Or do they track everything that closely.



Tom

Post a reply to this message