• Testing on workstreams will commence at the start of stage 3a (February 2010)
• Testing scripts have been esnt from BT outlining the testing plans.
• A testing planning meeting has been scheduled for the workstream leads next week.

As you may already know, next Ubuntu release, Lucid Lynx (10.04) is an LTS release.

For testers this means one important thing: upgrades should be smooth from either Ubuntu 9.10 (Karmic Koala) or latest Ubuntu LTS release (8.04, Hardy Heron).

As we all know, nowadays, computer storage is very very cheap, but bandwidth is not. Later in the cycle we are going to need to test as many upgrades from Hardy and Karmic as possible. So, why not planning ahead and start downloading today Hardy and Karmic images? The unstoppable Shane Fagan has started doing so already! You rock!

Later in the cycle you will be able to easily install Hardy or Karmic in a spare machine or a virtual machine and upgrade from there. You will have part of the work done. And you can start contributing to your beloved distribution just now

• Hardy images
• Hardy point release images
• Karmic images

Other releases from Ubuntu derivatives can be found at:

• Kubuntu releases
• Edubuntu releases
• Xubuntu releases

This is a test

This is a test

Testing….

http://psionides.jogger.pl/2009/11/23/check-your-scripts-with-jslint-on-rails/
– Check your scripts with JSLint on Rails

If you search back in the previous posts to this blog, you’ll find the answers to most of your SAT, ACT, and college application questions.

But I’ve been collecting questions that have come up from students and parents since that blog, and I think it’s time to do another HELP question and answer.  Here goes:

Question: I’m a high school junior.  I know my PSAT scores will be available by around Christmas break.  But when should I take the SATs?

Answer: I recommend that most of my students take the March and May SATs in their junior year. Most but not all?  If you have a commitment when the March or May test is scheduled (March 13, 2010 and May 1, 2010), you can take the January test (1/23/2010) or June test (6/5/2010), but the January test is often difficult and is too soon after the PSATs come back for you to use that info to prepare for the next test.  And the June test conflicts with finals and SATIIs.  So for most kids, March and May SATs are just right.

Question: What about SATIIs?  When do I take them?

Answer: SATIIs, or SAT Subject Tests, are one-hour multiple choice tests that are given in a variety of subjects, like math, science, foreign language and history.  The most selective schools require two or more SAT Subject tests.  The fairly selective schools like to see two or more.  The less selective schools don’t much care.  You can take up to three in a day, but DON’T!  Don’t take more than two in a day.  You’ll be wiped out. Most kids take those either in June of junior year (6/5/2010) or October or November of senior year. They’re given the same day as SATs (except no SATIIs are given in March), so you can’t take both SATs and SAT Subject tests on the same day.

Question: I’ve heard about the ACTs.  Do I have to take those, too?

Answer: The ACTs used to be popular only for kids attending school in the mid-west.  Now nearly 100% of my students take the ACTs.  Some kids do substantially better on the ACTs, some do better on the SATs, and some score pretty much the same on both.  The ACTs are shorter and less stressful, and that’s reason enough for some kids to take them. Bonus: If you take the ACTs and score well, you don’t have to take SATIIs — and if you score really well, you don’t even have to take the SATs.  I’d recommend juniors take the ACTs in April (4/10/2010).  They also give the ACTs in June, but why not take them in April?  That way, you’ll have your scores back in time to decide whether you have to take June SATIIs.

Question: I’m not even in my junior year yet, but I want to get started early.  What should I do to prepare for the SATs?

Answer: One thing NOT to do is take the 10th grade PSATs.  What a waste of time and money!  There’s no value in taking that test, and it might do you harm, because if you don’t do well, you won’t be able to take the 11th grade PSATs with confidence.  Another thing NOT to do is take practice tests given by testing organizations.  I’ve found the difficulty of the tests is unreliable. Either the tests are too easy to build your confidence, or they’re too hard so the testing organization can get you to sign up for a course of prep sessions.  Don’t do it. The best thing you can do to prepare early is pay attention in math class, asking for extra help if there are concepts you don’t understand, and read.  Read.  READ.  It’s especially useful to read TIME magazine or Newsweek, especially the letters to the editor (“inbox” in TIME) and the back page essay.  The more you read essays, the better you’ll be at reading essays. Makes sense.  If you think your vocabulary is particularly weak, try SAT Vocabulary for Dummies.  I hate the name of that book, but it’s very useful.

Question: Do I really have to take the SATs more than once?  How many times can I/ should I take them?

Answer: Don’t stop at once, even with score choice, unless you get something spectacular the first time, like above 730 on each section.  This isn’t a good time to be lazy.  And don’t take them more than three times.  After three times, your score isn’t likely to improve so significantly that it would be worth the extra time and effort.  So, take the SATs twice or three times, usually twice in junior year and once in senior year.

Question: Should I send my scores to schools when I sign up for the SATs to take advantage of the four free score reports?

Answer: I used to insist that my students send their scores to different schools each time they took the test, but now that they’ve instituted score choice (you can hide entire seatings of SATs if you want), there’s not enough benefit to sending scores now.  Wait until ALL of your tests are done, which means the fall of senior year for most students, then decide which SATs, which SAT Subject tests, and/or which ACTs to send.  Don’t send anything anywhere until then.

Do you have more questions? Please do ask by posting a comment to this blog.  And feel free to tell your friends and guidance counselors about my blog.  It’s the teacher in me — I just like answering questions!

Wendy Segal

Testing

And also declares war on discussing policy with the UFT.

“As it turns out our lawyers now tell us after a very close reading of New York’s law, the current law does not actually stop us from using student data to evaluate teachers who are up for tenure this particular school year, because the way it was written it covers only teachers hired after July 1^st of 2008, and those are not up this year.”

“So today, I’ve directed our schools Chancellor, Joel Klein, to ensure that principals actually use student achievement data to help evaluate teachers who are up for tenure this year. It is an aggressive policy…”

I really like this QuickPress blog feature, as it makes it real neat to quick throw a blog say, right in between two boring conferences (where you can write about how boring the past conference was!), and under the Tags, you need to place commas instead of enter.

試下打野先

再好好研究下呢個blog

I have been recently struggling with the collision of worlds from the waterfall approach to testing and the agile approach to testing.  There really isn’t a good solid statement being made about what does “end to end” and “system testing” look like in agile.

In concordance with keeping things simple.  Lets break it down starting with the end goal.

To produce shippable code at the end of an iteration.

This comes from the agile principle of

Deliver working software frequently, from a

couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a

preference to the shorter timescale.

In order to deliver working software, that software must be usable or done at that point.  Almost every agile process involves completing a user story, before moving on to the next.  (At least all the user stories in an iteration.)

Shippable software, is software that has finished being tested.   Getting to that point in one iteration is not something that is attainable if you hold on to the fallacy that is “system testing.”  What is “system” or “end to end testing” anyway?  I have never seen a true system level defect that did not exist also at a functional level.  What value are you getting by testing the whole system when you only changed a small part of the functionality?  And when you find defects at this high level of testing you end up having to triage them down to a root cause.

So what if we cut that out.  What if instead we said all functionality in the system that is desired is represented by automated tests which are produced in conjunction with the code.

What if we did 2 very simple things:

1. For each user story we write automated tests which define what we expect from the system, when those pass the story is done.
2. Each time we finish a story we run all the previous automated tests to insure nothing is broken.

If we do those 2 things, and we make sure the user of the system (or person representing the user) has agreed that the automated tests adequately cover what they want the story to accomplish is there a need to do anything else?  Or is it perhaps that this very complex methodology of testing really is just that simple?

Following on from my original and followup articles on using Pickle with Cucumber, a brand new version of Pickle is now available. Version 0.2.0 now gives you the ability to use Pickle with Cucumber’s multiline step argument tables. This means you can now do the following with Pickle:

    Given a company exists
    And another company: "rubyflare" exists
    And the following people exist:
      | name  | age | employed | company              |
      | Digby | 13  | false    | the first company    |
      | Ethyl | 27  | true     | company: "rubyflare" |
    Then the following people should exist:
      | name  | age |
      | Digby | 13  |
      | Ethyl | 27  |
    And the 2nd person should be one of company: "rubyflare"'s employees

You can quickly create multiple objects in an easy to read fashion rather than filling your scenarios with multiple lines of “an another user exists …”. As an added bonus you can also use Pickle references within these tables. In the example above, we are creating new people objects and associating them to the companies using the Pickle references for these company objects.

Again, I’ll just point out that the above example required no custom step definitions. I didn’t have to write any step definitions! Pickle takes care of the grunt work leaving you free to focus on your domain specific scenario steps.

Other recent improvements with Pickle include:

• an email helper for mapping names to email addresses similar to paths
• its own separate configuration file (pickle.rb) – pickle no longer adds code to features/support/env.rb

I’ve also updated my pickle_example project to the latest version and have added the above example scenario. Feel free to clone it and use it to explore the benefits of using Pickle.

While I was enjoying reading the series of articles and discussions around the subject, some points of concern questions were crystallizing in my mind, and now I feel ready to join the discussion by asking them.

Part I – Overview

What’s it about?

In the nutshell (in my humble opinion), a dire need in terms separation was inspired by highly analytical nature of authors on the one side, and a serious misunderstanding of the subject (Software Testing) by business (and I mean Sr. Management and all kinds of recruiters here) on the other side.

Long time ago

Historically testing derived from debugging. Since programs that times didn’t have much of “User Interface”, testing was closely involving looking at the source code and tracing it. Once program functionalities were wrapped around with user interface, functional testing (“Black Box”) arose. With years, bad coding practices were identified, good coding practices were proven, and code testing (“White Box”) separated from debugging. In the mean time, functional testing was growing mature on its own, no longer requiring programming knowledge and skills, but indistinctly separating to functionality-oriented testing and defect-oriented testing.

Added 11/25/2009

“With years, bad coding practices were identified, good coding practices were proven”

Coding, i.e. creation of program code, could be done in a variety of ways, utilizing different logic and following different patterns.

Programming language (compiler or interpreter) looks after syntax but not the logic. Some logics may seem to be working but not for the all user scenarios. Some other logics work perfectly but they are hardly maintainable or they may impact other areas, security, for example.

 
Creation of code that is defect-prone, hardly maintainable, or may impose other issues is a bad coding practice.
Following coding standards and using right programming patterns is good coding practice.

Please refer to “Making Wrong Code Look Wrong” article by Joel Spolsky for detailed examples. 

Added 11/25/2009

“indistinctly separating to functionality-oriented testing and defect-oriented testing”

Functionality-oriented testing is not a new definition or type of testing but is about verification and validation testing types, like User Acceptance Testing and Business Acceptance Testing processes used in Waterfall software development model.

On the other hand, User Story Testing in Agile methodology, is also a process of verification of implemented functionalities, allowing to confirm that it works as expected.

Defect-oriented testing is an exploratory process targeting any unwanted (defective, inconsistent, unsafe, etc.) functionalities, side effects, any other behavior of an application. That involves “improper” interaction with the application-under-test (Negative Testing, Stress Testing, etc.), or putting the application-under-test into “improper” conditions (Disk Failure, Low Memory, Network Timeout, etc.), or “hacking” the application (Security Testing, DB Attacks, etc.).
“Improper” is quoted because it’s not a regular interaction way or environment state but most likely may accidentally happen or be created on purpose with harmful intensions and thus have to be tried.

New branches on a tree

Certain types of tests were impossible to conduct purely manually  sapiently, and they were called “non-functional” (load/performance testing, security testing, etc.). However, those tests are generally conducted NOT on development team’s side.
Certain testing activities (i.e. GUI and non-GUI interaction, data entry, verification, reporting, etc.) became possible to conduct with help of other programs, and this is how computer-aided testing appeared. In turn, it could be separated to manual sapient testing with help of a tool, and automatic test case execution by a tool.
Certain managers found out that when requirements are clearly documented, and the all possible “needed” test cases are created, test execution tasks do not require much of tough testing skills. Testing becomes simple data entry task which can be done by virtually anyone.

Automation of “Black Box” testing activities

Creation of automatically executable test cases requires programming skills; the more comprehensive tests are, the more powerful test automation framework should be, and the more skilled and experienced developer is required to create the framework. Note that it is still about testing activities automation with test results as an output, and the final judgment is still on human. Anyway, here’s how we got automated testers (obviously, oxymoron, but look how many positions are named so), and automation developers (ironically, hands-on testing skills very often are not considered mandatory, while they should be critical in automation skillset).

Automation of “White Box” testing activities

Apart from code reviews conducted by a human being, isolated pieces of code (functions, procedures) could be verified by calling and executing them. The core idea here that for a call with particular arguments a function is expected to return specified value. If the value is wrong then the test is failed. This is how automatic unit testing appeared. Once test rules were created (either manually by programmer or by using code-generator), tests could be run by a person without programming skills. Note that even if “right” result was returned by a function-under-test, it does not 100% guarantee that the functionality is always correct, or even the function will work the same way in production environment.

“Data entry testing”

Degradation of testing to data entry opens wide saving opportunities for business. Surprisingly, some managers also find it beneficial because they get more [junior] people to manage. All kinds of outsourcing perfectly fit here too, from summer students to off-shore companies. However, down this road company will face two types of critical issues. First of all, “data entry testing” is purely verification-oriented; except of trivial ones, defects won’t be revealed. Second, as automatic test execution requires final human judgment, “data entry testers” are incapable of qualified analysis and investigation of defects they may encounter. Outsourced teams require heavy coaching and support. As a result, either somebody has to do re-testing, or software product’s quality degrades. 

Why separate?

From a hiring perspective, job requirements for QA/testing positions are total mess. Irrelevant subjects are often thrown in, and mandatory skills are overlooked. Separation and, more importantly, clear description of the each role in testing world might help in getting higher quality candidates. That in turn will benefit teams with higher quality resources, and companies – with higher quality of testing.
Clear distinction will benefit professionals too. At the end, 10 years of “data entry testing” are not nearly equal to 1 year of sapient testing, and such experiences must be treated differently. 

Conclusion

I strongly support the initiative of distinction and clarification. However, looking on how it evolves so far I see that it becomes unclear itself. Certain subjects and concepts that are distinct by nature are now mixed up.

I hope my questions will be considered by authors. (I don’t put any obligation to reply, of course). 

Part II – Questions

1. Code Testing vs. Product Testing – why mixing up?

Any program code becomes a software product after the build. Before that happens, code modules and atomic functions also can be (and should be) tested. This phase of testing does not substitute Functional Testing in any manner. Code testing is not meant to be only function checks. Primarily, it is code review, which is purely sapient activity.
The original article, however, fully disregards the sapient part of code testing, and also sets code testing as opposite to functional testing. Why?

Added 11/25/2009

Testing vs. Checking, “Testing Is Not Quality Assurance, But Checking Might Be”

“Checking, when done by a programmer, is mostly a quality assurance practice. When an programmer writes code, he checks his work. He might do this by running it directly and observing the results, or observing the behaviour of the code under the debugger, but often he writes a set of routines that exercise the code and perform some assertions on it. We call these unit “tests”, but they’re really checks, since the idea is to confirm existing knowledge. In this context, finding new information would be considered a surprise, and typically an unpleasant one. A failing check prompts the programmer to change the code to make it work the way he expects. That’s the quality assurance angle: a programmer helps to assure the quality of his work by checking it.”

The whole chapter and the quoted block put label “checking” on programmer’s part of testing – the code testing. Since “checking” is posed as non-sapient, and code testing is checking only, does it mean programmers don’t do any sapient testing as opposite to software testers?

In fact, when a programmer writes code, he reviews every created block. Before code is checked-in to the code base it has to be reviewed.

In the article I see “compliant” examples were elaborated (e.g. Automated Unit Testing) but “non-compliant” (what about Pair Programming ?)  were omitted.

2. Why checking is a confirmation?

As per suggested definition, checking is rule-based, while the rule itself is comparison-based. It is also assumed that the comparison rule returns either “TRUE” or “FALSE”. But that’s not the end! Any verification (or checking) also needs to be validated. Validation is a context-specific rule, outside-of-the-box rule, which is applied with sapience.
Example: “Check if the door is open”. Both TRUE and FALSE could be VALID, depending on the context. Without validation, checking results are useless.

3. Why testing must be done only through exploration and investigation?

Any sapient investigation, broken down to atomic steps, involves obtaining actual results, defining or retrieving expected results, defining or retrieving a comparison rule, applying the rule, and finally validating the check performed, based on the context.

5. Testing programs do not create new rules. Testers do. Why didn’t you clearly state that? 

Added 11/25/2009

Regular computer programs may strictly follow the predefined rules, may come up with one of the predefined rules, even may build-up a new statement from the predefined blocks, but they do not learn and do not create.

The whole idea of “Testing vs. Checking” is in “Testing is a sapient activity”. Large part of the article is dedicated to proving of that with examples and logical chains. Did it have to be so complicated?  

Testing programs do not create new checking rules. Testers do.

What could be more sapient than the act of creation of something new?  

6. What is the value of testing if it doesn’t help improving the quality?

Added 11/25/2009

  

If a tester finds a lot of defects and throws reports via email or into ticketing system is it the end of tester’s job? Developers may reject them [defect reports]; sales people may urge with the release; PM may not realize severity of issues…

  

Bug fixing improves the quality. Bug finding without hunting them down until they’re fixed has zero business value. That’s useless (no profit, no saving and minus tester’s paycheck) gathering of information.

 

Testers should not and don’t have to be able forcing bug fixing through management or business power. They have other means to do it. Communication, first of all.

 

Not having power is not an excuse. It’s just stepping back from quality.

I don’t know what business would hire people interested in “gathering of information” only, and careless about product’s quality.

 

Alexander Rossi and Esteban Gutiérrez drive a BMW Sauber F1.09.

Munich/Hinwil, November 24^th 2009. Despite pulling out of Formula One, BMW is staying true to its promise of giving two talented young Formula BMW drivers their first taste of an F1 car. Alexander Rossi and Esteban Gutiérrez will take part in the official Formula One test for young drivers at Jerez from 1^st – 3^rd December 2009.

“Depriving these junior drivers of the test we had promised them was not an option for us, even after the withdrawal of BMW from Formula One,” said BMW Motorsport Director Mario Theissen. “BMW remains committed to motor sport and is keen to continue making a contribution to well-structured talent development.”

Rossi, from Nevada City in California, earned his opportunity to test an F1 car by taking victory in the 2008 Formula BMW World Final in Mexico City. The 18-year-old qualified for the international showdown by winning the Formula BMW Americas series earlier that year.

The 2009 season saw Rossi finish fourth overall in the International Formula Master series and wrap up the rookies’ title in the process. Shortly before his 18^th birthday – which he celebrated on 25^th September 2009 – the American was able to familiarise himself with the Jerez circuit during a test in a GP2 car. He went on to make his GP2 Asia debut in Abu Dhabi during the final weekend of the Formula One season on 31^stOctober/1^st November, finishing fourth in race 1 and fifth in the sprint race.

As Rossi is keen to emphasise: “I take the opportunity to present myself as a driver at Formula One level very seriously and I’m very aware of the far-reaching potential it has. I feel very fortunate and my goals for the test are to put in a fantastic performance while fully absorbing the whole experience. There is a growing list of people that have helped me get where I am today. This is a team effort and I am very grateful for this support. A special thanks to BMW Motorsport Director Dr. Mario Theissen for making this test possible and having the confidence in me.”

Gutiérrez – another 18-year-old – also secured his place at the Formula One test on the back of strong performances in Formula BMW. Having swept to the 2008 Formula BMW Europe title in convincing fashion, the Mexican went into the World Final on home territory as favourite, eventually finishing third.

Gutiérrez was born in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon on 5^th August 1991 and now lives in Paris. This year he finished ninth in the drivers’ standings in the Formula 3 Euro Series. A GP2 test at Jerez in October enabled him, like Rossi, to gain prior knowledge of the track in southern Spain. In early November he completed a two-day test in a GP2 car in Le Castellet, southern France.

The Mexican explains: “We have put all our efforts into the preparations for this great opportunity that will provide me with an insight into what the future may bring. The opportunity to drive a Formula One car is the fulfilment of part of my dreams. I feel very pleased and will use this experience to learn about and experience the professionalism of a Formula One team. This will help me to find the aspects where I need to work on myself more. This test is the achievement of many people who have given me support. It is also an honour for me to represent my home country Mexico. I will deliver my best.”

The three days of testing (for young drivers who have taken part in no more than two Formula One events) were written into the FIA rule-book for 2009. A large number of F1 teams are expected to travel to Jerez, not least because no other testing has been permitted since the start of the season and the ban remains in force until 31^st December.

We have a really exciting opportunity for a recent graduate to work in a broadcasting and media business. We are looking for a good communicator with ambition to be a successful user experience practitioner. You will have some information architecture and user experience skills, and be keen to learn under the direction of an established team. You will be mentored and guided through some flagship projects and this will be great exposure to information architecture and usability testing using eye tracking and video software.

Starting asap on a monthly rolling contract, this role is paying c£140-200 per day depending on experience and is based in West London.

Gill Arnold

0207 420 3538

gill@wearefutureheads.co.uk

It’s interesting how the French police contributes to the enhancement of the political education of students at Sciences Po:

“Police reacted with deliberate and overtly racist violence during celebrations in Paris after Algeria’s footballing victory over Egypt last Wednesday, a French student of Moroccan descent has alleged. In an account written on his Facebook page immediately after the events, and re-printed as the lead story in French daily Libération on Tuesday, 21-year-old Anyss Arbib claims he was assaulted for no reason, sprayed with mace and called a “dirty Arab”. Arbib, a fourth-year student at Paris’s elite Sciences-Po (Political Sciences) university, went into central Paris from his home in the northern suburbs of Bondy to celebrate Algeria’s victory with friends. ” (from “Have your say: French police violence”, France 24, November 24 2009)

With special encouragement from the Dean:

“It was not until a day later however, that Arbib decided to publish his account, after Sciences Po dean, Richard Descoings, encouraged him to do so.” (from “Alleged victim of police brutality told by uni dean it was “essential to publicise account”, France 24, November 24 2009)

Even Eric Besson, Sarkozy’s man for immigration and national identity, seems to be looking forward to meet this newly formed politician (see “Le cabinet de Besson contacte le ’sale Arabe’ de Sciences-Po”, Rue89, November 24 2009). Congratulations to the forces de l’ordre for this pedagogical contribution! Students from prestigious foreign schools in political sciences (here, here, etc.) can now increase their curricula with just a spontaneous encounter with the CRS in central Paris. And it’s free!

The latest developments in the field of protection testing encompass the testing of relays and protection schemes which use the IEC 61850 protocol. The International IEC 61850 standard is relatively new. It was developed to control and protect power systems by standardizing the exchange of information between intelligent electronic devices (IED) within an automated substation and a remote control link. The substation high speed per-to-peer messaging is accomplished using what is called the “Goose” (generic object oriented substation event) message. This message will be used extensively when performing tests… (more)

This is a test of the WordPress interface with Facebook, in order to see if/how blogs appear from my pc.  A future test will be done from my BlackBerry.

-Paul