Resource
Article [7215]
General
[1038]
Acceptance
[63]
Ad Hoc
[28]
Agile, Scrum
[233]
Black Box
[117]
Bug, Defect
[258]
DB, Test Data
[275]
Environment
[43]
Functional
[115]
Glossary, Term
[74]
GUI, Usability
[98]
Integrate test
[47]
Interview, FAQ
[288]
Manual Testing
[117]
Methodology
[232]
Metrics
[332]
Mobile, Embed
[154]
Performance
[327]
Process
[194]
Requirement
[124]
Review, Static
[102]
Risk
[99]
Security Test
[215]
Standard, ISO
[179]
Test Automate
[349]
Test Case
[342]
Test Design
[70]
Test Plan
[314]
Test Manage
[228]
Test Script
[56]
Test Technique
[265]
Tool
[176]
Tool- Jmeter
[41]
Tool- Selenium
[127]
Unit Test
[167]
Web Test
[258]
White Box
[70]
Ebook [1168]
General
[281]
Acceptance
[3]
Agile, Scrum
[24]
DB Test
[76]
Development
[137]
GUI, Usability
[17]
Interview, FAQ
[9]
Java Test
[68]
Metrics
[17]
Mobile, Embed
[14]
Performance
[49]
Process
[11]
Requirement
[55]
Review, Analysis
[8]
Risk
[7]
Security Test
[71]
Standard
[20]
Test Manage
[86]
Test Automate
[84]
Tool
[8]
Unit Test
[67]
Web Test
[60]
Testing Tool [2277]
Acceptance
[25]
Agile, Scrum
[42]
Bug Tracking
[127]
Build, Release
[27]
Environment
[58]
DB, Test Data
[83]
Functional
[240]
GUI, Usability
[79]
Java Test
[71]
Metrics
[57]
Mobile, Embed
[79]
Network Test
[67]
Performance
[222]
Requirement
[62]
Review, Static
[105]
Security Test
[111]
Test Design
[52]
Test Manage
[208]
Unit, Debug
[224]
Utility, Capture
[97]
Web Testing
[235]
Video [622]
News [2773]
Webinar [914]
Certification Resource
CTAL [271]
CTEL [35]
CSTE, CSQA [198]
CSQE [41]
CMMI, TMMI [135]
PMP [115]
ITIL [67]
Six Sigma [41]
Other [83]
Forum
Forum [1943]
Book
[56]
Certification
[48]
Conference
[64]
ISTQB
[159]
QTP
[93]
Software Test
[1066]
Standard, ISO
[89]
Testing Tool
[289]
vivekjogExhaustive Testing as the name suggests ‘Performed comprehensively and completely’ and remember that 100 % Testing is not possible, you may have a greater confidence on your application but 100 % Tested Application can only be found in Pluto; just take it for the understanding don’t get into it.
Let’s come to the actual point. Assume you are testing an application that has a Textbox (accepts min 1 and max of 26 chars length) that accepts characters from a-z, if the user is a novice tester then it will first enters a, b … z individually then will group them as aa, ab, … az, then will increase the order and combinations and then finally come up at the point where he has to enter all characters as abcde…z in that Textbox. This kind of testing is exhaustive testing which is extremely undesirable.
The solution for the Exhaustive testing appears to be resolved by boundary values as follows:
If I am going to test that Textbox in my application I will create following test cases to get the same degree confidence that required by Exhaustive Testing.
1. Enter nothing (leave the textbox blank) application remains intact error/warning is displayed depending on requirement.
2. Enter a or any other SINGLE character only
3. Enter ab or any other TWO character only
4. Enter abc..y or any combination of 25 characters only
5. Enter abc…z or any combination of 26 characters only
6. Enter abc…za or any combination of 27 characters only, error/warning is displayed depending on requirement.
I anticipate, the idea is a bit clear about Exhaustive Testing by considering above two examples and it is very obvious which way is more effective and efficient.
Let’s look at the scientific part of the Exhaustive Testing. You know that English alphabets composed of 26 letters and the Textbox above is also a maximum of 26 length, therefore there are “6.1561195802071573107966742884002 e+36” that many combination that you have to test for that single Textbox which is impossible. If you are thinking to automate this textbox then you are fooling yourself, the amount of logic required to test this textbox will also be cumbersome. Once you try to find the solution for this then you will say test case 1 to test case 6 is the better solution
Let’s come to the actual point. Assume you are testing an application that has a Textbox (accepts min 1 and max of 26 chars length) that accepts characters from a-z, if the user is a novice tester then it will first enters a, b … z individually then will group them as aa, ab, … az, then will increase the order and combinations and then finally come up at the point where he has to enter all characters as abcde…z in that Textbox. This kind of testing is exhaustive testing which is extremely undesirable.
The solution for the Exhaustive testing appears to be resolved by boundary values as follows:
If I am going to test that Textbox in my application I will create following test cases to get the same degree confidence that required by Exhaustive Testing.
1. Enter nothing (leave the textbox blank) application remains intact error/warning is displayed depending on requirement.
2. Enter a or any other SINGLE character only
3. Enter ab or any other TWO character only
4. Enter abc..y or any combination of 25 characters only
5. Enter abc…z or any combination of 26 characters only
6. Enter abc…za or any combination of 27 characters only, error/warning is displayed depending on requirement.
I anticipate, the idea is a bit clear about Exhaustive Testing by considering above two examples and it is very obvious which way is more effective and efficient.
Let’s look at the scientific part of the Exhaustive Testing. You know that English alphabets composed of 26 letters and the Textbox above is also a maximum of 26 length, therefore there are “6.1561195802071573107966742884002 e+36” that many combination that you have to test for that single Textbox which is impossible. If you are thinking to automate this textbox then you are fooling yourself, the amount of logic required to test this textbox will also be cumbersome. Once you try to find the solution for this then you will say test case 1 to test case 6 is the better solution
Service
New
Popular Documents
Monthly
Yearly
Popular Download
Weekly
Monthly
Twitter
tag
Management
checklist
Plan
performance
Selenium
Performance Testing
agile testing
mobile testing
QA
security testing
PM
Software Testing
Interview
Manual
Questions
test plan
software qa service
Quality
process
Sql
Software
Automation
Test management
web
web testing
Guide
conference
mobile
HP
Test Automation
software testing company
Exam
QTP
ISTQB
Bug
outsourcing software testing
tester
mobile application testing
Development
Sample Exam
Certification
Template
framework
Metrics
Test
testing
Unit Testing
security
agile
Test Case
tool
Visitor
Member Login (IP)
277933
160855
209956786
Yesterday
Today
Total

 
 
meogia45
Thanks