SPONSORS:






User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Rational Robot

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Centreville,VA,USA
    Posts
    7
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Rational Robot

    Hi:
    Any one has any document as to what we are looking in for Code Reviews in Rational Robot.
    If you can attach a document its highly appretiated.I think some one will be following code reviews in Robot.

    Thanks
    Prem
    mohan

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Austin, TX, USA
    Posts
    1,489
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Rational Robot

    Whether you are talking about doing code reviews of Robot scripts or using Robot to do code reviews, I don't see much use in either. Its not usually necessary to get this involved with QA on your test scripts, but I guess if you have the time and money to spare and are going for that kind of detail you could. As far as using Robot to do code reviews, I don't think that's possible. I think you are probably refering to one of the other Rational products. Purify? Quantify? I can't remember which.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,798
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Rational Robot

    If you really wanted to do code reviews on Robot then it would be best to do this to in house standards, first step might be to co-op a friendly developer to assist and act as a coach on good coding standards.
    The main reason to do something like this is if you have large automated test suites and a high turn over of staff, or sub optimal tests which have a lot of time spent on them being updated and maintained.
    It may be cost effective if you spend a large amount of time on maintaining the test code, I have previously implemented eXtreme Programming techniques to test code in these situations. It work and the return was worthwhile, but then we were in a very bad place before [img]images/icons/frown.gif[/img]
    ------
    Regards,
    Neill McCarthy
    Agile Testers of the World UNIT!

    For more contextual Musings visit http://www.testingreflections.com/ and now at http://www.sqablogs.com/neillmccarthy/
    ---

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Centreville,VA,USA
    Posts
    7
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Rational Robot

    Hi Guys,
    We have automated almost 600 Test Cases and so I think we should follow some coding standards to maintain it properly. I am talking about doing code reviews of Robot scripts that we have automated for almost 600 Test Cases. Does any one follow coding standards in your organization. If so can you help me.

    Thanks
    Prem
    mohan

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    5
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Rational Robot

    Here is one example of a peer review. Could be incorporated into a code review.
    AUTOMATED TESTING PEER REVIEW CHECKLIST
    Note: Automated tests are identified and reviewed at the test script or function level. Artifacts will consist of the minutes of the peer review meeting and the following documents (as appropriate):
    Manual test script
    Robot script
    Test results log
    Library file entry (if appropriate, which in this case means the file entry has been added or changed since the last time a script which calls it was reviewed)
    Supporting datapool ( if required)

    Work Product Description
    APPLICATION
    FUNCTION / TEST SCRIPT
    RELEASE
    DATED

    Test Analyst: Reviewer: Review Date:

    Reviewer Checklist Yes No N/A
    1. Do the comments clearly state the purpose of the script?

    Comments:
    Response:
    2. Do the comments clearly identify pre-conditions for running the script?

    Comments:
    Response:
    3. Do the comments clearly identify post-conditions for running the script?

    Comments:
    Response:
    4. Are comments that provide additional information that applies specifically to this script clear and easily understood?

    Comments:
    Response:
    5. Is the script sectioned off and commented in such a way that you can tell what part of the manual test is being performed?

    Comments:
    Response:
    6. Can the test be repeated without data manipulation?

    Comments:
    Response:
    7. Are the verification points in the manual test scripts supported by those identified in the test procedure?

    Comments:
    Response:
    8. Does the script take advantage of using common code where it is available or can (should?) be developed?

    Comments:
    Response:
    9. For called functions, are the Inputs comments correct?

    Comments:
    Response:
    10. For called functions, are the Returns comments correct?

    Comments:
    Response:
    11. For called functions, do the comments clearly identify pre-conditions for running the function?

    Comments:
    Response:
    12. For called functions, do the comments clearly identify post-conditions for running the function?

    Comments:
    Response:
    13. For called functions, are comments that provide additional information that applies specifically to this function clear and easily understood?

    Comments:
    Response:
    14. Has the script been validated by another tester on a different client? If not, who will do the validation?
    Name:
    Comments on Library File
    Page Function Line Comment

    Comments on Test Script
    Line Comment

    General Comments:


    SUMMARY INFORMATION:
    Name Preparation Time
    1. Author/Presenter:
    hours

    2. Moderator:
    *moderator can be N/A if review is electronic
    hours

    3. Reviewer:
    hours

    4. Reviewer:
    hours

    5. Reviewer:
    hours

    6. Reviewer:
    hours


    Summary of Timekeeping for the Review:
    Activity Labor Hours
    Meeting/Review Time ( X people for Y hours)
    Total Planning Effort:
    Total Preparation Effort:
    Post-review Effort
    Total Overview Effort: 0


    Product Appraisal:
    ACCEPTED NOT ACCEPTED
    ___ as is ___ re-review following rework
    ___ conditionally upon verification ___ review not completed

    Projected Rework Completion Date: (DD MMM YYYY)

    Hope this helps.

    Ed

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.36 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 10.00%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise v2.6.4 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.2.8 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBNominate (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Username Changing provided by Username Change (Free) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
BetaSoft Inc.
Digital Point modules: Sphinx-based search
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:31 AM.

Copyright BetaSoft Inc.