
No matter how good your quality process is, you are introducing bugs. This article reviews the places where bugs are introduced in the software development process (from stakeholders to users), and reviews ways to address those bugs.

No matter how good your quality process is, you are introducing bugs. This article reviews the places where bugs are introduced in the software development process (from stakeholders to users), and reviews ways to address those bugs.

This series is a reprint of an article by Scott Sehlhorst, written for developer.* in March 2006. A recent article on dailytech about “new” methods for software testing points to some very interesting research by the NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology) Information Technology Lab. We’ve split the original article into three articles to be more consistent in length with other Tyner Blain articles.
This is part 3 of a 3 part series.

This series is a reprint of an article by Scott Sehlhorst, written for developer.* in March 2006. A recent article on dailytech about “new” methods for software testing points to some very interesting research by the NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology) Information Technology Lab. We’ve split the original article into three articles to be more consistent in length with other Tyner Blain articles.
This is part 2 of a 3 part series.

This series is a reprint of an article by Scott Sehlhorst, written for developer.* in March 2006. A recent article on dailytech about “new” methods for software testing points to some very interesting research by the NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology) Information Technology Lab. We’ve split the original article into three articles to be more consistent in length with other Tyner Blain articles.
This is part 1 of a 3 part series.

Last week, Ivan Chalif, a product manager / blogger, tapped into a thread criticising product managers for not adopting and espousing agile, or at least rapid-release techniques. In this article we look at Ivan’s comments and one of the articles that he referenced. We also share our own perspective and an alternative analysis of what may have happened.
James Kovacs shares a great insight on software testing and the software testing process. His epiphany about test driven development makes it obvious to all of us why this technique is so powerful.
There’s a piece of North American folklore about John Henry, who was a manual laborer during the expansion of the railroads in our country. His job was being replaced by steam-driven heavy equipment, as the railroad industry applied technology to become more efficient. The same dynamics are happening today with manual testers. We need to make sure that manual testers avoid John Henry’s fate - read on to see why.
A detailed (15-page) article by Scott Sehlhorst showing how to incorporate test automation for complex software has been published at developer.*. This article shows the math, benefits, and weaknesses of traditional approaches to automating functional tests. The article also proposes improvements to the process, rethinking the problem to provide innovative solutions. This post discusses the background for the article and provides an overview, as well as links to related content.
Functional Testing, also referred to as System Testing of software is the practice of testing the completed software to confirm that it meets the requirements defined for the software. A functional test is typically a test of user interactions, but can also involve communication with external systems. We contrast functional testing with unit testing. We also show how functional testing provides different benefits than unit testing.
Martin Fowler has identified the key process elements of making Continuous Integration work. You could even argue that they are the elements that define Continuous Integration (done correctly). We include his list and our thoughts below: