The online community for software testing & quality assurance professionals
 
 
Calendar   Today's Topics
Sponsors:




Lost Password?

Home
BetaSoft
Blogs
Jobs
Training
News
Links
Downloads



Software Testing >> Functional Testing

Pages: 1
ousu
Newbie


Reged: 01/04/11
Posts: 4
General functionality testing
      #717295 - 10/02/12 02:10 AM

Hi,

How to (Exploratory)test the application?
Do I need to consider only the functionality(Just Requirements)?

For example: In the date fields, I guess The customer never enter 9999 as a year. So, Is it necessary to test that date boundary testing?

Sometimes, I feel I am completely diverting with checking just date or some number boundary values instead of checking functionality.

What do you think? Is it necessary to spend time for testing on this issues, which customer won't perform (99.99%).


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joe Strazzere
Moderator


Reged: 05/15/00
Posts: 12344
Loc: Massachusetts, USA
Re: General functionality testing [Re: ousu]
      #717300 - 10/02/12 03:51 AM

Quote:

For example: In the date fields, I guess The customer never enter 9999 as a year. So, Is it necessary to test that date boundary testing?



Yes, you should test it.

"Never" is a long time...

--------------------
- Joe
Visit AllThingsQuality.com to learn more about quality, testing, and QA!

I speak only for me. I do not speak for my employer, nor for anyone else.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ankur_T
Newbie


Reged: 09/05/12
Posts: 10
Loc: India
Re: General functionality testing [Re: Joe Strazzere]
      #717605 - 10/06/12 06:44 AM

Hi Joe,

There was a field (Age field) I was testing that should take only numbers. I copy & pasted some alphabets and application broke (After hitting Save button, application went to wait state).
But when i reported this issue i was told that the issue is not big enough to fix. I believe that such a remark was made because in real life scenario nobody would do so and I agree to this. But as a tester I did and would continue to do so.
Just wanted to hear your views on this.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joe Strazzere
Moderator


Reged: 05/15/00
Posts: 12344
Loc: Massachusetts, USA
Re: General functionality testing [Re: Ankur_T]
      #717606 - 10/06/12 11:16 AM

Quote:

There was a field (Age field) I was testing that should take only numbers. I copy & pasted some alphabets and application broke (After hitting Save button, application went to wait state).
But when i reported this issue i was told that the issue is not big enough to fix. I believe that such a remark was made because in real life scenario nobody would do so and I agree to this. But as a tester I did and would continue to do so.




LOL! I've won many bets with Developers when they said "nobody would ever do that."

As long as the consequences aren't too bad when they do (such as a corrupted database or such), I'm often willing to defer these edge cases while still believing that eventually someone will do it.

--------------------
- Joe
Visit AllThingsQuality.com to learn more about quality, testing, and QA!

I speak only for me. I do not speak for my employer, nor for anyone else.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
CPat
Member


Reged: 12/08/09
Posts: 102
Re: General functionality testing [Re: Joe Strazzere]
      #718677 - 10/24/12 08:33 AM

I would continue to submit these as defects until you are asked not to by the project team. My personal preference is to continue to document these in a 'findings' document that I maintain. At the end of the test phase, I would schedule a meeting to review this in the presence of the project manager and developer with a sign-off process.

6 months from now when a user corrupts a database, I can promise you will be asked, "Why didn't you test this?"


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
BrodyB
Newbie


Reged: 11/13/12
Posts: 2
Re: General functionality testing [Re: CPat]
      #719758 - 11/13/12 12:22 PM

So, I guess I would say that if you are finding this class of defect (unformated date input) then you should continue to log that class of defect (create a template so it doesn't take long to log), but you should absolutely explore other areas and not become a one trick pony.

One suggestion is to extend your exploratory testing to include other field type tests, field vocabulary, scope and type constraints, field length truncations, etc.

If a user is editing a field he WILL mangle the data, if that data is important or needed further down the workflow then the system should try and prevent the mangling of that data. So, indicating that 99.9% of the users wouldn't do that is probably not accurate.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1



Extra information
0 registered and 19 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  blueinatl, AJ, Jeanj, corklad, martinh, brentpaine 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 5046

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us | Privacy statement SQAForums

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5