Difference between preventative and reactive approaches to testing?
I am new with this forum. I am going to raise my first question which me and my one of the close friends have some doubt on it.
What is the KEY difference between preventative and reactive approaches to testing?
We need better response from your side.
Do you understand what the words "preventative" and "reactive" mean?
Can you tell us your view of how those might apply to testing, so that we have something to work with here?
Preventative tests are designed early Vs. reactive tests are designed after the software has been produced.
Preventive - Here the test are planned right on time in life cycle with a specific end goal to keep the imperfection prior to testing itself
Reactive- Taking an action after the deformity have happened. i.e corrective action after the issue have happened.
Reactive Approach - Work more nights and weekends.
Ok, Joking aside, on the Reactive side you really don't have much choices. You have..
1. Throw more man power at the problem. (hoping your test plan is well fleshed out enough that the work can be easily divided)
2. Throw more time at the problem. Work more hours, delay the release.
3. Reevaluate the problem - Stop what you are doing, and redo the test plan.
There are some hacks you can do such as replace scripted testing to timeboxed ad-hoc sessions. Scatter shot test coverage, or focused test coverage on a critical area.
On proactive.. well.. the ideas can go on forever.. But here are 2 key things.
1. Having a clear strategy - What is the mental framework that should be used to approaching future projects.
2. Having a clear plan - Detailed analysis of a project, and creating a test plan to address the issue.
Having a good strategy will help you have a good plan.
3. Budgeting time and money for process improvement. If you don't prioritize improving, than everything will be reactive as you deal with the problems.