We have around 8 projects and 8 testers in our organisation. The testers are usually aligned to the Development manager and report to him.  There is no proper process by which the testing can be stream lined. What happens is the developer managers forces the tester to test according to the developers schedule and the manager comes to defend them.  How can a process be set up in a small organisation which ensures good utilization of testers and also helps testers to learn new technology.
123385
So I'm going to be starting a Job here in a few weeks, I've been doing QA for about 6 years now. Pretty much your standard Test Plans/Testing with a little normal SysAdmin stuff that sometimes comes with the task. I've had some good ideas implemented in companies, as far as tracking requirements/test plans/issues differently, and they seem successful. However, this new position will be me laying down the foundation for QA. Right now things are done in what seems to be as needed as far as QA goes, requirements are gathered and sometimes kept in different locations, same with test plans (which are done by developers right now). So my job will be sort of centralizing this, or developing a Flexible way of QA'ing the Software (Web/Mobile development). So it seems the challenge will be centralizing everything, while creating test plans/ or ways of testing similar requirements that is flexible enough to span projects. I've had a few ideas, however, all my previous test work was windows based (So test plans in TFS or Microsoft Test Manager). I wanted to get some ideas from everyone here, or anyone that has started a QA department from scratch. I was also going to see if there were any books on the subject. My thoughts were mainly keeping projects separated for issue tracking (not sure of the software we will use yet). And keeping test plans for common I guess &quot;actions/elements&quot; that are repeated between different customers and executing those. Eventually maybe using selenium to save those &quot;common&quot; elements as test scripts. But I've never set something up like this before solo, so I've been doing quite a bit of reading. Any books/suggestions would be appreciated!
81682
Is there a way to test an application where you simulate a hundred different clients connecting to a IIS server and asking the same data? At the customer where our project is running they have 400 computers and they often do stress tests with all computers. I on the other hand have only got my laptop... (and a development server).  (In my case the data is asked through a WebORB Gateway).
10972
I have thus far avoided the nightmare that is testing multi-threaded code since it just seems like too much of a minefield.  I'd like to ask how people have gone about testing code that relies on threads for successful execution, or just how people have gone about testing those kinds of issues that only show up when two threads interact in a given manner?  This seems like a really key problem for programmers today, it would be useful to pool our knowledge on this one imho.
109864
As programmers we are daily faced with having to get requirements, test things out, etc.  It's practically half our job to know what questions to ask, and how to ask them to get the most concise, actionable answer possible, especially from reluctant users/managers/customers/etc.  How do you ask questions that get answers?
122812
Obviously the first tester group would be your own group. But beyond that? It would seem to make sense to have at least more than one group test out your game, as different groups want different things and play differently. Fresh eyes find different bugs, etc. etc.  Are there resources out there to help aspiring game designers without a lot of contacts find people willing and eager to test out their game?  Or is this in essence a "" issue?  To clarify my own situation:  I have the mechanics finished. The setting is still under development, but in accordance with the motto "fail faster" I want to go ahead and test the mechanics (in a different setting for now) to see if they work and are fun or if I need to go back to the drawing board. I have a sort-of group, but I don't know them very well and they don't meet often, and so I'm not excited about the prospect of presenting the mechanics to them right now (as I'm sure there are a dozen issues I've overlooked). Also, I'd like to test the game (including the setting, later) on more than one group, as mentioned above. I've put out some feelers among my current friends and acquaintances, but nobody's really been excited about playtesting or even really giving in-depth feedback, and I don't want to be that person who's always shoving their project in your face. I'm willing to run something online as well. I'm also interested in having others run a game without me present, and giving me their feedback.  Also, I'm looking for something of a guide-type answer that might help someone besides just me.
119898
I've got a class and test class that I know are at least 75% covered, but for some reason when running from the Developer console, although all tests pass, code coverage remains at 0% and doesn't show any coverage information.  Thinking this might just be an issue with the Developer console, I've tried this through MavensMate and got the same result and deploying code to an older org but still get the same problem.  I'm assuming this might be linked to the recent release but I wanted to know if:   There's a fix (even if it means contacting Salesforce Support)   OR   There's a workaround
17848
I just attended a webinar for Tricentis and their Tosca tool which looks promising.    How can this be applied to the real world? Would this tool replace manual testing?    What does Model Based testing really mean?
66950
I understand that they force you to implement methods and such but what I cant understand is why you would want to use them. Can anybody give me a good example or explanation on why I would want to implement this.
123538
Several months ago I started an experiment in test automation. Each test, before it starts, picks up random test data. For instance, when my test requires a user with administration privileges, I draw a random account and then I from a group of admin users for this account I draw a random admin user.  The reason for using random test data was two-fold:    First, when we were using static, i.e., hard-coded test data, sometimes tests started to fail, because test data no longer existed in DB, e.g., a user has been removed from the database (we're having production dump in our test DB, so I guess the user has been deleted in production). When we started to find such users at runtime, the problem disappeared.  Second problem was that it was not really clear why certain test data were used for a certain test. We have inherited tests from the other team and couldn't understand their intentions behind, for instance, using user "xyz@awesome.com". By writing queries to find data, we started to explicitly state what type of test data we want, e.g., that we want a user with administration privileges.   While my approach solved both problems, it introduced also some new issues:   Tests occasionally fail, because they pick up wrong test data. This is because queries are sometimes incorrect. For instance, once a test drawn a random account that had no administrators at all. Good thing about that is that this way I keep learning new things about the system under tests, e.g., that there must be business reasons to have accounts without administrators. Test setup becomes more and more complex, as queries start to grow and thus tests seems now a bit more complex to understand.   I was also hoping to increase coverage and find more bugs by using random test data just like it is done in fuzz testing. Instead, I mostly found bugs in my test and learned how little I know about the system under test. Finally, ROI doesn't seem big. Before the change there was a cost of maintaining static test data (updating test data if they were outdates). Now I have to maintain complex queries when the test takes "wrong" test data and this tends to occur more often than outdating of static test data previously.  I wonder whether using random test data really makes sense and how to do it right?
75548
Edit  Wow I got royally lynched for this. Please see the accepted answer which illustrates the reasons for Programmers to exist pretty well.  I'd like to say for the record I stand corrected - Programmers clearly has its own role (albeit with a fair amount of overlap with SO) and its own community and identity.    The programmers.stackexchange.com FAQ defines its purpose:     Programmers — Stack Exchange is a site for professional programmers who are interested in getting expert answers on conceptual questions about software development. If you have a question about...         algorithm and data structure concepts   design patterns   developer testing   development methodologies   freelancing and business concerns   quality assurance   software architecture   software engineering   software licensing         [you're in the right place]   The problem is that questions (and more importantly, answers) on all concept-based programming topics that I could think of seem to be much more prolific on StackOverflow than on Programmers:   "algorithm" - on  and  "patterns" - on  and  "architecture" - on  and  "MVC" - on  and    I suspect this is because the only people who care about code architecture problems are the same people who solve the day-to-day technical problems that should be posted on SO - so they naturally go there. There is no type of person who would exclusively use Programmers.  I would say this didn't necessarily matter - it's a good way of grouping questions by topic - except that it is much much harder to get an answer to a programming question on Programmers than it is on StackOverflow. I can post the same question (about code architecture)  and  and the StackOverflow one gets answered much quicker.  Given Stack Exchange's  I therefore suggest that Programmers shouldn't exist. Either that or we need to find another solution so that people actually answer programming questions on Programmers.
119792
After I received some invitations, I didn't know what to do with them. I asked  and I got the answer that as a developer I might know some good developers. But still something is missing:   If the invitations are to attract good developers why do we get a limited number of invitations? I have got 5 invitations, why shouldn't I be able to invite more than 5 developers? I was member of Stack Overflow Careers for more than a year but I got the invitations somehow like a reward for completing my profile. If invitations are just for attracting good developers they shouldn't be limited. Secondly imagine that I invited some developers, does the quality of invited developers have effect on me and my careers account? If yes then I should just keep these invitations for some special people as I just have limited number of them.
52568
I don't particularly think I can add more to what Monica's said about what went wrong, and . Things could have gone better. I don't really see people getting any happier about it.   I'd like to ask for a few things going forward.   Firstly - that a community team member should be dealing with social media criticisms, and we really should also be giving our communities the benefit of the doubt. In situations like this - something like "Hi! We've noticed you have an issue with the content you see on SO's sidebar. We'll see how we can help" would have been a better starting point than knocking a site off HNQ. Under most circumstances, I'd actually trust Adam - as a former community team member - to deal with it, but in this situation, we basically had folks from two different teams that don't actually deal with users directly in such circumstances try to help, in good faith and, well it didn't work that well. We need to have someone specifically dealing with these things.     We also need a clear idea of how the folks who deal with these things need to engage with the affected communities if action is taken.   For most part, the community team's had to do damage control when they're the folks who should have been dealing with it. I do realise in the past few years they've basically been pulled in 20 different directions and have been constantly dealing with backlog - but one of the consequences is it feels like the management of SO and SE has been drifting further and further away from the community.   We've constantly been told that we need to make SE better for new users and we need to attract them and grow. I've occasionally accused SE of being short sighted. I think this is one of those situations where I'm starting to feel there's tunnel vision - since the end result of it is folks who would traditionally supported SE feel that traditional methods seem neglected.  You have one of the best community teams I've had the pleasure of interacting with. They're engaged, passionate and some of the best folks I've interacted with on the internet. You'd be down a lot of core users if not for them. They're also smaller than they have ever been, with a smaller team than some medium sized site. (This is a difficult thing for me to talk about - since I've expressed an interest in the role before). We constantly hear promises that they'll improve processes - and that they'll tackle the backlog. And what we really really really need is people on the ground listening. "Hey guys, so someone has issues with the site. Could you guys tell us what you think? Could we do something about it?" goes so much further than anyone realises.  We've been really really patient, but we shouldn't need to tweet at folks to get your attention. We've been really patient. We really would love SE to grow, but not at the expense of its heart.
116547
I am in a unique situation where I was hired as for QA with no computer background. How this happened is a long story but now I'm here, trying to become a useful and productive member of this team. Where would you start your training? What are some of the most useful skills to have?
71547
I have been asked to test a new project, which is a web application for performing job searches. I've tested these kinds of products before, but this new project implements machine learning to enhance a couple features. These features include suggesting suitable jobs to a profile, and sending out targeted jobs via emails.   I've not tried to test a system which relies on machine learning. How would I go about doing so?  Specifically, how would I test this system to test that profiles are being sent 'correct' jobs via emails and through the website?
40631
I'm relatively new to the  module and I've read contradictory recommendations online regarding whether it's easiest to maintain A) one big feature or B) several smaller features and then a "feature-controller" type module that lists all the smaller features as dependencies.  A bit about my specific situation: I'm using a local development -&gt; dev server -&gt; staging server -&gt; live server workflow.  This particular site will almost certainly be the only one of its kind that I ever develop; I do not intend to use the features I create for this site on any other sites.  This makes me lean toward doing everything in one big feature because I've had problems in the past where I accidentally defined the same rules in multiple features and gotten into trouble.  However, in terms of structure this seems wrong to me-- there are different features/functions so they ought to be divided into separate features.  On the other hand, I feel like by doing this I may just create additional work and overhead for myself that won't benefit anyone.  Which approach is easier to maintain in actual practice-- one big feature or many smaller ones?
76776
The downside... It seems like the type of question that would be a duplicate - but I don't see any, so I'll ask anyway. I'm finding it difficult to not visit Stack Overflow for any significant amount of time. I wake up in the morning, and check Stack Overflow at 5:30 am. I check it before I close my laptop to head off to work. I check it when I connect at the office. I check it throughout the day. How do I break the combination? The upside... I have explored more methods of accomplishing tasks than ever before after having registered here and viewing some questions. I've been introduced to many new tools, practices, and theories about development that I can honestly say make me more confident as a developer.
36782
I  have read similar questions here but it did not help. My understanding is as follows:  Integration testing - done by developers, integrating low-level components together System testing - testing of a single system, as a whole System integration testing - testing systems together (e.g. front-end with database and external provider).  In practice, often there is no system testing of individual subsystems (we do not test separately the UI or the database layer, usually), we test it together in SIT. Can I even consider the UI or the DB layer be a separate system? But when then testing the whole thing, isn't it again System testing?