Question 1 :
What if the software is so buggy it can't really be tested at all?
The best bet in this situation is for the testers to go through the process of reporting whatever bugs or blocking-type problems initially show up, with the focus being on critical bugs. Since this type of problem can severely affect schedules, and indicates deeper problems in the software development process (such as insufficient unit testing or insufficient integration testing, poor design, improper build or release procedures, etc.) managers should be notified, and provided with some documentation as evidence of the problem.
Question 2 :
How can it be known when to stop testing?
This can be difficult to determine. Many modern software applications are so complex, and run in such an interdependent environment, that complete testing can never be done. Common factors in deciding when to stop are:
â€¢ Deadlines (release deadlines, testing deadlines, etc.)
â€¢ Test cases completed with certain percentage passed
â€¢ Test budget depleted
â€¢ Coverage of code/functionality/requirements reaches a specified point
â€¢ Bug rate falls below a certain level
â€¢ Beta or alpha testing period ends
Question 3 :
What if there isn't enough time for thorough testing?
Use risk analysis to determine where testing should be focused.
Since it's rarely possible to test every possible aspect of an application, every possible combination of events, every dependency, or everything that could go wrong, risk analysis is appropriate to most software development projects. This requires judgement skills, common sense, and experience. (If warranted, formal methods are also available.) Considerations can include:
â€¢ Which functionality is most important to the project's intended purpose?
â€¢ Which functionality is most visible to the user?
â€¢ Which functionality has the largest safety impact?
â€¢ Which functionality has the largest financial impact on users?
â€¢ Which aspects of the application are most important to the customer?
â€¢ Which aspects of the application can be tested early in the development cycle?
â€¢ Which parts of the code are most complex, and thus most subject to errors?
â€¢ Which parts of the application were developed in rush or panic mode?
â€¢ Which aspects of similar/related previous projects caused problems?
â€¢ Which aspects of similar/related previous projects had large maintenance expenses?
â€¢ Which parts of the requirements and design are unclear or poorly thought out?
â€¢ What do the developers think are the highest-risk aspects of the application?
â€¢ What kinds of problems would cause the worst publicity?
â€¢ What kinds of problems would cause the most customer service complaints?
â€¢ What kinds of tests could easily cover multiple functionalities?
â€¢ Which tests will have the best high-risk-coverage to time-required ratio?
Question 4 :
What if the project isn't big enough to justify extensive testing?
Consider the impact of project errors, not the size of the project. However, if extensive testing is still not justified, risk analysis is again needed and the same considerations as described previously in 'What if there isn't enough time for thorough testing?' apply. The tester might then do ad hoc testing, or write up a limited test plan based on the risk analysis.
Question 5 :
What can be done if requirements are changing continuously?
A common problem and a major headache.
â€¢ Work with the project's stakeholders early on to understand how requirements might change so that alternate test plans and strategies can be worked out in advance, if possible.
â€¢ It's helpful if the application's initial design allows for some adaptability so that later changes do not require redoing the application from scratch.
â€¢ If the code is well-commented and well-documented this makes changes easier for the developers.
â€¢ Use rapid prototyping whenever possible to help customers feel sure of their requirements and minimize changes.
â€¢ The project's initial schedule should allow for some extra time commensurate with the possibility of changes.
â€¢ Try to move new requirements to a 'Phase 2' version of an application, while using the original requirements for the 'Phase 1' version.
â€¢ Negotiate to allow only easily-implemented new requirements into the project, while moving more difficult new requirements into future versions of the application.
â€¢ Be sure that customers and management understand the scheduling impacts, inherent risks, and costs of significant requirements changes. Then let management or the customers (not the developers or testers) decide if the changes are warranted - after all, that's their job.
â€¢ Balance the effort put into setting up automated testing with the expected effort required to re-do them to deal with changes.
â€¢ Try to design some flexibility into automated test scripts.
â€¢ Focus initial automated testing on application aspects that are most likely to remain unchanged.
â€¢ Devote appropriate effort to risk analysis of changes to minimize regression testing needs.
â€¢ Design some flexibility into test cases (this is not easily done; the best bet might be to minimize the detail in the test cases, or set up only higher-level generic-type test plans)
â€¢ Focus less on detailed test plans and test cases and more on ad hoc testing (with an understanding of the added risk that this entails).