|
There is considerable variety among software testing writers and consultants about what constitutes responsible software testing. Members of the "context-driven" school of testing〔(context-driven-testing.com )〕 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. In addition, prominent members of the community 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. The context-driven school's retort is that Lessons Learned in Software Testing includes one lesson supporting the use IEEE 829 and another opposing it; that not all software testing occurs in a regulated environment and that practices appropriate for such environments would be ruinously expensive, unnecessary, and inappropriate for other contexts; and that in any case the FDA generally promotes the principle of the least burdensome approach. Some of the major controversies include: ==Agile vs. traditional== Starting around 1990, a new style of writing about testing began to challenge what had come before. The seminal work in this regard is widely considered to be ''Testing Computer Software'', by Cem Kaner. Instead of assuming that testers have full access to source code and complete specifications, these writers, including Kaner and James Bach, argued that testers must learn to work under conditions of uncertainty and constant change. Meanwhile, an opposing trend toward process "maturity" also gained ground, in the form of the Capability Maturity Model. The agile testing movement (which includes but is not limited to forms of testing practiced on agile development projects) has popularity mainly in commercial circles, whereas the CMM was embraced by government and military software providers. However, saying that "maturity models" like CMM gained ground against or opposing Agile testing may not be right. Agile movement is a 'way of working', while CMM is a process improvement idea. But another point of view must be considered: the operational culture of an organization. While it may be true that testers must have an ability to work in a world of uncertainty, it is also true that their flexibility must have direction. In many cases test cultures are self-directed and as a result fruitless, unproductive results can ensue. Furthermore, providing positive evidence of defects may either indicate that you have found the tip of a much larger problem, or that you have exhausted all possibilities. A framework is a test of Testing. It provides a boundary that can measure (validate) the capacity of our work. Both sides have, and will continue to argue the virtues of their work. The proof however is in each and every assessment of delivery quality. It does little good to test systematically if you are too narrowly focused. On the other hand, finding a bunch of errors is not an indicator that Agile methods was the driving force; you may simply have stumbled upon an obviously poor piece of work. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Software testing controversies」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|