When we talk about Testing

12/12/20161 Min Read — In Testing

Testers and muggles need to get on the same page about Testing.

It's not "manual" testing, it's just TESTING.

You wouldn't call it manual programming, would you? All testing is done by a human.  We use our mind and hands and tools. A useful distinction in the context-driven testing community is to refer to any automated tests by calling them 'checks' like automated programming is called 'compiling'.

It's not "exploratory" testing, it's just TESTING.

That's kinda like saying 'ATM machine'. Testing by its very nature is exploratory. If you know the output of the expected input and action, it's a demonstration or a check. This is useful to think about when considering what gets automated.

It's not "scripted" testing, it's just TESTING.

A tester may or may not employ documented tests for their testing if it suits the context. If it can be checked in this way, it's a darn good candidate for your automation suite.

It's not "standard" testing, it's just TESTING.

Whose standards? What standards? Did you mean employing things like regression, functional or usability testing? Or maybe you meant using old QA standbys like equivalence class partitioning, boundary analysis, state modeling? Or maybe you've got a favorite IEEE or ISO standard but which one and does it fit the system?

It's not "formal" testing, it's just TESTING.

There is no formal testing process although testers understand why the idea is so appealing to stakeholders. Sometimes a bit of rigidness and formality is the right thing to lean on for test coverage. Your boss probably wants a pass/fail report and metrics. That's what an automation suite is particularly good at.