Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Intelligent Test Automation

Intelligent Test Automation

Ratings: (0)|Views: 741 |Likes:
Published by Karthik Tantri

More info:

Published by: Karthik Tantri on Dec 18, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/01/2010

pdf

text

original

 
IntelligentTest Automation
   I   L   L   U   S   T   R   A   T   I   O   N   S   B   Y   S   T   E   V   E   B   J    Ö   R   K   M   A   N
www.stqemagazine.comSoftware Testing
&
Quality EngineeringSeptember/October 2000
24
Tools & AutomationTools & Automation
 A model-based method for generating tests from a description of anapplication’s behavior
 by Harry Robinson
Warning: The fairy tale you are about to read is a fib—but it’s short,and the moral is true.
O
nce upon a product cycle, there were four testers who setout on a quest to test software.
started hands-on testing imme-diately,and found some nice bugs.The develop-ment team happily fixed these bugs,and gaveTester 1 a fresh version of the software to test.More testing,more bugs,more fixes.Tester 1 felt productive,and was happy—atleast for a while.After several rounds of this find-and-fix cycle,he became bored and bleary-eyed from runningvirtually the same tests over and over again byhand.When Tester 1 finally ran out of enthusi-asm—and then out of patience—the softwarewas declared “ready to ship.”Customers found it too buggy and boughtthe competitor’s product.
Tester1
This article is provided courtesy of
Software Testing &Quality Engineering (STQE) 
magazine.
 
September/October 2000Software Testing
&
Quality Engineeringwww.stqemagazine.com
25
QUICKLOO
s
Improving the efficiency of yourautomated testing through modeling
s
Overcoming the limitations of hands-onand static automation testingstarted testing by hand,but soon de-cided it made more sense to create test scripts thatwould perform the keystrokes automatically.Aftercarefully figuring out tests that would exercise usefulparts of the software,Tester 2 recorded the actions inscripts.These scripts soon numbered in the hun-dreds.At the push of a button,the scripts wouldspring to life and run the software through its paces.Tester 2 felt clever,and was happy—at least fora while.The scripts required a lot of maintenance whenthe software changed.He spent weeks arguingwith developers to stop changing the software be-cause it broke the automated tests.Eventually,the scripts required so much maintenance thatthere was little time left to do testing.When the software was released,customers found lots of bugs that thescripts didn’t cover.They stopped buy-ing the product and decided to wait forversion 2.0.
Tester2
didn’t want to maintain hundreds of automatedtest scripts.She wrote a test program that went around randomlyclicking and pushing buttons in the application.This “random”test program was hypnotic to watch,and it found a lot of crash-ing bugs.Tester 3 enjoyed uncovering such dramatic defects,and was happy—at least for a while.Since the random test program could onlyfind bugs that crashed the application,Tester 3still had to do a lot of hands-on testing,gettingbored and bleary-eyed in the process.Cus-tomers found so many functional bugs in thesoftware when it was released that they losttrust in the company and stopped buying itssoftware.
Tester3
This article is provided courtesy of
Software Testing &Quality Engineering (STQE) 
magazine.
 
Commentaries
These four scenes show some of the approaches availablein software testing today.
Tester 1
is a typical hands-on tester, manually running alltests from the keyboard. Hands-on testing is commonthroughout the industry today—it provides immediate ben-efits, but in the long run it is tedious for the tester and ex-pensive for the company.
“One of the saddest sights to me has always been a hu- man at a keyboard doing something by hand that couldbe automated. It’s sad but hilarious.” 
—Boris Beizer,
Black-Box Testing: Techniques for Functional Testing of Software and Systems 
Tester 2
practices what I call “static test automation.” Staticautomation scripts exercise the same sequence of com-mands in the same order every time. These scripts are cost-ly to maintain when the application changes. The tests arerepeatable; but since they always perform the same com-mands, they rarely find new bugs.
“Highly repeatable testing can actually minimize thechance of discovering all the important problems, for the same reason that stepping in someone else’s foot- prints minimizes the chance of being blown up by aland mine.” 
—James Bach,“Test Automation Snake Oil,”
Windows Tech Journal,
October 1996Tester 3
operates closer to the cutting edge of automatedtesting. These types of “random” test programs are called
dumb monkeys
because they essentially bang on the key-board aimlessly. They come up with unusual test action se-quences and find many crashing bugs, but it’s hard to
www.stqemagazine.comSoftware Testing
&
Quality EngineeringSeptember/October 2000
26
began with hands-on,exploratory testing to become familiar with the application—and used the knowledge gained during the hands-on testing to create a very simple behavioral modelof the application.Tester 4 then used a test program to test the application’s behavior against what themodel predicted.The behavioral model was muchsimpler than the application under test,so it waseasy to create.Since the test program knew whatthe application was supposed to do,it could detectwhen the application was doing the wrong thing.As the product cycle progressed,developerswrote new features for the application.Tester 4quickly updated the model,and the tests contin-ued running.The program ran day and night,con-stantly generating new test sequences.Tester 4was able to run the tests on a dozen machines atonce and get several days of testing done in a sin-gle night.After several rounds of testing and bug fixes,Tester 4’s test generator began to find fewer bugs.Tester 4 upgraded the model to test for additionalbehaviors and continued testing.Tester 4 also didsome hands-on testing and static automation forthose parts of the application which were not yetworth modeling.When Tester 4’s software was released,therewere very few bugs to be found.The customerswere happy.The stockholders were happy.And Tester 4 was happy.
Tester4
This article is provided courtesy of
Software Testing &Quality Engineering (STQE) 
magazine.

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
eserna liked this
murugeshs liked this
vikas_khichar liked this
vinod236 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->