Shmuel's Software Stuff

Things to share about Software Testing

Testers don't think like Developers think like Computers

Jun 16

Posted by Shmuel Gershon in Nerd T35t1ng, Test Annotations, Test Insight | 4 Comments

We all are told constantly not to think like a programmers.
We’ve told other people dozens of times “Don’t you think like a programmer. We don’t care why the software does it – it is still wrong”.

Dreaming in Code

For testers, thinking like developers is evil. If you think like a programmer, you’ll start excusing the software and will forgive the system’s bugs.

I am reading the very cool book “Dreaming in Code” by Scott Rosenberg, and I just understood a little bit more on why’s so bad sharing the developers mindset.

Read the rest of this entry »

Set the butterflies free – now I am collecting quotes

Jun 8

Posted by Shmuel Gershon in Nerd T35t1ng, Personal, Test Annotations | No Comments

I’ve started a quote collection. Many times I want to quote someone but I just don’t remember how exactly the phrase was. Or remember the quote but am not certain on the source…

I am fond of quoting.
Not sure why, but I like to quote. I guess it gives some legitimating to what I am saying. 🙂

So, the quote collection is available at this address: http://testing.gershon.info/quote-collection/. It will grow slowly, please check it regularly.

BotT: Excel 2007 has algebra difficulties…

May 4

Posted by Shmuel Gershon in Bug of this Time, Nerd T35t1ng, Test Insight | 1 Comment

Do you use MS Office 2007?
Well, then you probably noticed that Excel multiplies “850 x 77.1” as “100,000” instead of “65,535”.

Uh, you didn’t notice? Well neither did I until I read it all over the internet.
See the post on SlashDot for scoop, and see its comments for some good laughs. 🙂

There are explanations all around about how this bug came to appear in Excel.
The best one is probably Joel’s one (you may remember Joel from this post). Read the rest of this entry »

Happy New Testing Year Again! What? Too late?

Apr 13

Posted by Shmuel Gershon in Personal | No Comments

When I started the blog, I planned on at least one post per month.
I managed pretty well, with 15 posts in a year, plus a handfull of draft wanderings that maybe will se the light someday…

But then the new year came and everything wreaked havoc. 🙁
I had hosting issues (of which I am to blame for most) and then had to make a new and different account and restore everything, from the WordPress system to the posts databases, including tweaking the code to look for everything in the new locations. Too much work, too little coffee.

So that’s the reason.
And new year is coming, this time, in April :).

Happy New Testing Year, then!
Let’s see if I can continue with the post a month this time 🙂

Three texts that changed my (testing) life

Dec 19

Posted by Shmuel Gershon in Test Insight | 1 Comment

I was once talking with a friend about automation and when it should be done. I commented with him about the excellent “When Should a Test Be Automated?” paper by Brian Marick, and told him that “this is one of the three texts that changed my testing life“. I was surprised at the fact these three texts were already categorized as such in my head, and at the promptness I could think of them, at the spot.

So I want to share with you these articles, with a bit of background on them, and hyperlinks wherever I can find them. They are presented in the (chronologic) order they came to my attention.

Read the rest of this entry »

More on 'Things Which Can Be Tested' :)

Oct 13

Posted by Shmuel Gershon in Test Insight | 1 Comment

Now, here is more about testing untestable systems.
Please read “He Who Can Not Be Tested” and “He Who Will Be Tested!” before you continue, if you want to be in the mood.

I found an article about this subject, which is called “Testing the Untestable: Reliability in the 21st Century“.

Read the rest of this entry »

He Who Will Be Tested!

Sep 15

Posted by Shmuel Gershon in Test Insight | 1 Comment

Hi Again!

My past post on ‘apparently untestable systems‘ turned out to be a very cool experience. I talked with a lot of friends about it, and also had a very informative thread running on the comp.software.testing usenet group. The discussion was called “Is every single program testable? How do you deal with ‘untestable’ software?”

That thread was so helpful to further my understanding of testing, that I’ll put here a summary. It surely will make a good reference for me on the future, and I hope this will be useful for others too.

So, in order to continue and understand, read the ‘He Who Can Not Be Tested‘ post. All the discussion started from the questions in there:
– Do you think there are types of software which cannot be tested to a satisfactory degree?
– So how would you test software like this (of Dr. Parnas)? Or would you, as was his approach, just refuse to write and test it?

I’ll condense the responses here, and will add a note (and maybe a link) about each person. Note: The responses are edited and rearranged from the original replies, not really verbatim (although I changed the wording very little). Read the rest of this entry »