Re: Test Phase

[Bev Parks <bparks -at- HUACHUCA-EMH1 -dot- ARMY -dot- MIL>]

 Mike Uhl wrote:
   One of the roles I played as a technical writer during the test phase of
   software for which I was writing documentation was to liaise between
   the testers and the programmers. The relationship between the testers and
   the programmers was often strained because testers only produce negative
   results. Has hard as they try to praise the good work they see, what they
   actually produced in writing were problem reports. What I tried to do was
   get problem information from the testers to the programmers *before* the
   testers wrote them up officially. In this way, the problems never existed.
   I was able to update my documentation and the programmers corrected the
   code and management was never the wiser.  ;-)

 Bev Parks responded:
   I've been away from the List for awhile, so am picking up this
   thread in the middle. The "shortcuts" Mike describes are very
   common, but they are also a way of skirting the system and could
   cause more serious problems in the future.

   Problem reports are a vital tracking mechanism. Code changes
   made in the way that Mike describes (without a written record)
   are very risky when the software has formally passed into the
   testing phase.

And Robert Plamondon replied--
  > Well, the entire point of the exercise Mike described is to have the
  > software tested with the help of the testers BEFORE the official test
  > phase.  You test it during the development phase, so you can make
  > sure you're developing something that works.
==========

I did say I was picking up this thread in the middle. Thanks,
Robert, for clearing up the phase confusion. Of course, there
*is* also a formal phase of testing, called "software
development test" (SDT), which is conducted by the programmers before
the software is passed formally to the testers. Since this is
likely the phase that was being discussed, my discussion of
"skirting the system" was probably off-base. Mike's wink ( ;-) )
after saying that "management was never the wiser" had me
thinking something was being done out of the normal software
development cycle.  In my environment, SDT does not usually
involve the testers -- programmers usually test each others'
sections of code, followed by a complete system test, before
turning the software over to the testers. The testers conduct
a software qualification test followed by a software acceptance
test.

> This sort of under-the-table quality conspiracy has always been around,

Following all our previous discussion, I don't see this as being
"under-the-table."  :-)

Before the comments start about this having absolutely nothing
to do with technical writing: save the keystrokes, I'm finished.

=*= Beverly Parks =*= bparks -at- huachuca-emh1 -dot- army -dot- mil =*=
 =*= "These opinions are mine, not my employer's." =*=
  =*=                     =*=                     =*=