|
Maximilien wrote: John F. Woods once said : “Always code as if the person who ends up maintaining your code will be a violent psychopath who knows where you live.”.
This... this right here... is gold. 
Maximilien wrote: In reality, I have to do about 20 different steps to get there and go through thousands of records (SQL) to find one record that will work.
Sounds like someone who wrote those tests didn't know squat about writing tests (which is a lot of people). A unit test should never connect to a live resource. Not only is that non-deterministic, but you can't run 1,000s of tests quickly that way.
Maximilien wrote: Seriously, do you know of any good white paper on how to write good test cases ?
Wish I could help with that buddy. For me, it was a combo of coworkers helping and trial and error with Stack Overflow Googling.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
we're not running unit tests; I don't know how I could integrate that in our ancient/antiquated codebase 
We're doing functional and integration testing and acceptance testing.
It's just hard to change the inertia; that's why I would need some good resources to help me suggest some changes.
Thanks for the moral support.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
Ooops. Totally missed the non-unit part. 
If these are integration "test cases" they sound more like documentation for manual steps than anything else then. Probably could've achieved the same thing in a README.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Would test automation help?
Had used Selenium framework, for a web application, some years ago, and our test scripts automated all the steps. There must be a similar framework for desktop apps.
|
|
|
|
|
My Sr. partner is the best when it comes to breaking things:
0: Entering non-numeric chars where numbers should go or invalid numbers such as 1,1.2 or 1.1,2 (fun fact, letters up to f will happily identify as numeric)
1: Extremely long text/numbers, special characters, 0s as divisors
2: Leaving 'required' fields blank
3: Using the back button in web apps
Of course, there are some situations you can't predict. That's what users are for! 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
"Hope is contagious"
|
|
|
|
|
and/or
- cancel dialogs
- close app (with click on "X") while db is in edit mode
- kill app with task manager while someone is editing something
- use special - non ascii - chars where it is not expected
- simulate high load with endless read/write operations
- change screen size/resolution to unusual values
modified 10hrs 10mins ago.
|
|
|
|
|
This message has been flagged as potential spam and is awaiting moderation
|
|
|
|
|
It comes down to my biggest beef with tests and that's being only as good, generally, as whoever wrote what they're testing.
For one, some jabroni didn't really write tests for your system. They wrote some documentation.
If you can't run them in an automated fashion - without manually hunting records down and manipulating data? Then they simply aren't tests and if the person's task was to write tests, they 100% failed that task.
You write the test so that it stages the data you know will work and then delete that data post-test.
[OneTimeSetup] / [OneTimeTearDown] are the decorators for NUnit to do stuff like that.
When we started writing a bunch of tests, we settled structuring things linearly like the following with regions for:
Class Members
Assemble/Setup
Act/Invoke
Test Asserts
Cleanup
|
|
|
|
|
Get some experienced testers to bash it hard - much better than test scripts IMHO - writing(and testing / maintaining test scripts) is often harder than coding the application
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
It seems like you're suggesting that getting experienced testers to thoroughly test a product is more effective than relying solely on test scripts. This approach can indeed provide valuable insights and uncover issues that might not be caught through automated testing alone. Your quote by Hunter S. Thompson highlights the importance of thoroughness and vigilance in testing to avoid pitfalls.
|
|
|
|
|
For at least 30 years, we have had/practiced the "5-year-old robustness test":
Put the kid in front of a keyboard and a screen, and tell him: Do anything you want. If you make it lock up, and can show daddy/mommy what you did, you'll have an ice cream cone!"
I know of a few ice cream cones awarded that way 
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
I like it.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,060 4/6
🟨⬜🟩⬜⬜
⬜⬜🟩🟩⬜
⬜⬜🟩🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,060 4/6
🟨⬜🟩⬜⬜
⬜⬜🟩🟩⬜
🟨⬜🟩🟩🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Bad third guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,060 3/6*
🟩⬜⬜🟩⬜
🟩⬜⬜🟩🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
⬜⬜🟩⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜🟩
⬜⬜🟩⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,060 4/6
🟩⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟩⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟩🟨🟨🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
An L of greens 💚.
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,060 3/6
🟨⬛⬛⬛⬛
🟩⬛⬛🟩⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,060 5/6
⬜⬜⬜⬜🟩
⬜⬜⬜🟨⬜
⬜⬜🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,060 4/6*
🟩⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟩⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟩⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have. -Anon
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music. -Frederick Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,060 4/6
🟩🟩⬛⬛⬛
🟩🟩⬛⬛⬛
🟩🟩⬛🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Ok, I have had my coffee, so you can all come out now!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,060 3/6*
🟩⬛⬛⬛⬛
🟩🟩⬛⬛⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
In my experience we web devs don't actually use or at least watch a video of a screen reader. This is bad. Very bad. Because we talk about accessibility, but it's amazing how many people still don't use aria tags, leverage semantic elements, etc.
Every web dev should watch this video. It's only 4 mins long.
Screen Reader Demo for Digital Accessibility
Not trying to sound preachy (but I am ). The man is spot on. The world revolves around the Internet now. We can't forget about our blind brothers and sisters.
Side note, one of the cool features (as it pertains to the skip to content thread below) is the screen reader shown already has the ability to jump to a header. Also notice he skipped over the skip to main content link.
But even outside of that, peeps need to see a screen reader in action at least once. In particular how it allows him to scroll with a focus box over content.
Jeremy Falcon
modified yesterday.
|
|
|
|
|
That's a really interesting video and provides great perspective on the issue.
I know that Bootstrap is really good about providing the aria tags as part of their controls, etc. and using Bootstrap helped me to gain some understanding of the importance.
This video was really informative and helpful and made me re-think about how important it is.
Thanks for sharing. 
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: This video was really informative and helpful and made me re-think about how important it is.
What I find funny is they can already skip to the main content by virtue of headers.  And home dude just strait up ignored that link.
One of the peeves I had watching that video is whoever wrote that web page used spacer divs, images, or something without using an aria-hidden tag. Granted, it's a university and not a professional site, but still. You'll see some of those tabs tabbed over blank space for that reason. Spacers are so 20 years ago, but if you're gonna use one because you refuse to learn Flexbox, at least use an aria tag to tell the screen reader what's up.
raddevus wrote: Thanks for sharing.
Any time buddy.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
