Software testing controversies
 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
There is some variety among software testing writers and consultants about what constitutes responsible software testing. The Context-Driven School of Testing[1] consider much of the writing about software testing to be doctrine, mythology, and folklore. Some contend that this belief directly contradicts standards such as the IEEE 829 test documentation standard, and organizations such as the Food and Drug Administration who promote them.
Many members of the Context-Driven School of Testing believe that there are no best practices of testing, but rather that testing is a set of skills that allow the tester to select or invent testing practices to suit each unique situation.[citation needed] James Bach wrote "...there is no practice that is better than all other possible practices, regardless of the context."[2] However, some testing practitioners do not see an issue with the concept of "best practices" and do not believe that term implies that a practice is universally applicable.[3]
Some writers believe that test automation is so expensive relative to its value that it should be used sparingly.[4] Others, such as advocates of agile development, recommend automating 100% of all tests.
References
- ^ context-driven-testing.com
- ^ Bach, James (8 July 2005). "No Best Practices". Retrieved 5 February 2018.
- ^ Colantonio, Joe (13 April 2017). "Best Practices Vs Good Practices – Ranting with Rex Black". Retrieved 5 February 2018.
- ^ An example is Mark Fewster, Dorothy Graham: Software Test Automation. Addison Wesley, 1999, ISBN 0-201-33140-3