Reply to: Testing Terminology

[WTFH]

Well bit of an update have managed to get all the test summaries updated to show oPMco delivered in budget, on time (as usual)

So now I am being showered with expensive gifts and have a harem of ho's courtesy of the exec







(Note some of the above may be a lie)

Yeah, I've highlighted the bit I don't believe for one minute.
I thought you were a contractor!

[original PM]

Well bit of an update have managed to get all the test summaries updated to show oPMco delivered in budget, on time (as usual)

So now I am being showered with expensive gifts and have a harem of ho's courtesy of the exec







(Note some of the above may be a lie)

[greenlake]

Do you need any tester?

I have six of them available

It sounds like a pair of testes would be most useful....

[FatLazyContractor]

Out comes all the jargon

Where? No one called you a chunt yet. Or have I missed it?

[SimonMac]

Yes indeed - exactly my point and concern.

Interestingly enough it has changed again so I will be making a point of ensuring the next report does not say 'Blocked' by oPM.

It's not a proper defect call until someone brings out the contract and commericals

[DodgyAgent]

Here come the experts ....

Out comes all the jargon

[SueEllen]

It has transpired that the data schema we were given for the data transfers was wrong and so needs to be redeveloped.

However on the test plan it is showing as 'Blocked' by oPMco - my view is that it is not blocked at all - it is in rework because the requirements we got were wrong.


Any idea's or comments?

What statues are you allowed to use? List them and someone will give you a relevant one.

[FatLazyContractor]

Here come the experts ....

[meridian]

Yes indeed - exactly my point and concern.

Interestingly enough it has changed again so I will be making a point of ensuring the next report does not say 'Blocked' by oPM.

If it's a consultancy then it's likely that it will be subject to a CR process? "Blocked by CR12345" should show that the reason for the block is due to their own CR? Make sure that any status reports show that the original development as per spec was completed and delivered, and that this piece of work is a late CR.

In my experience of large consultancies, their director/client liaison will be sitting in progress meetings saying that the reason for the delay is that they are waiting on your work, regardless of what the plan status actually says anyway, and leaving it open to interpretation.

[original PM]

Yes, they will do everything in their power to ensure that it looks like your fault. Therefore, "Blocked", from their perspective, is the correct status as it implies that their work is on hold until you finish yours. It doesn't matter, of course, that your work is trying to fix their incorrect design in the first place...

Yes indeed - exactly my point and concern.

Interestingly enough it has changed again so I will be making a point of ensuring the next report does not say 'Blocked' by oPM.

[meridian]

Just to humour you they are all from a large consultancy...

does that make a difference?

Yes, they will do everything in their power to ensure that it looks like your fault. Therefore, "Blocked", from their perspective, is the correct status as it implies that their work is on hold until you finish yours. It doesn't matter, of course, that your work is trying to fix their incorrect design in the first place...

[original PM]

Depends, are they testing against what was designed or what they expect to happen? Are the test cases approved and signed off?

Well it was their design in the first place sooo.....

[SimonMac]

Well you could argue the test passed - in that we created the extract in the agreed format and sent it to the relevant system.

It failed to load into that system as the format we had extracted the data into - whilst correct based on the requirements - was incorrect as it would not load into the recipient system.

So oPMco systems have done exactly what has been asked of them.

Not that fussed - it is just a clear attempt by tuliplibra to cover up their inability to get a lot of people in a place full of beer drunk.

Depends, are they testing against what was designed or what they expect to happen? Are the test cases approved and signed off?

[DodgyAgent]

Do you need any tester?

I have six of them available

[LondonManc]

Well you could argue the test passed - in that we created the extract in the agreed format and sent it to the relevant system.

It failed to load into that system as the format we had extracted the data into - whilst correct based on the requirements - was incorrect as it would not load into the recipient system.

So oPMco systems have done exactly what has been asked of them.

Not that fussed - it is just a clear attempt by tuliplibra to cover up their inability to get a lot of people in a place full of beer drunk.

Correct.

Test passed. It ran to spec.

You could argue that it has passed unit testing but failed SIT.
Root cause analysis would show that it was specified incorrectly; the quality of the spec should be flagged, rather than the inability of the developers to deliver accurately.