Re: What is wrong with testing like a noob

I think testing like a "noob" is a good thing. It's like "real world testing". You have to admit however, that certain kinds of tests are better automated. What if you have check the results for every value between 1 and 1000?

But "noob" testing does pick up alot of bugs that "predefined testing" dosn't get, because the "predefined tests" are usually testing for things the programmmer IS AWARE of. Whereas the "noob" testing uncovers things which were totally unexpected.

In Tk I use noob testing all the time. I just start clicking away and entering values that some dumb_as_ might do if he was running things without reading the instructions. I find alot of "little glitches" which the programmer dosn't account for because he/she assumes the end-user is competent.

I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth. flash japh

Comment on Re: What is wrong with testing like a noob

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: What is wrong with testing like a noob by skyknight (Hermit) on Jun 27, 2004 at 17:32 UTC
Just poking at your code is, in the long run, a wasteful and sub-optimal activity. If you are going to go to the trouble to test something once, then it would be far better to figure out how to automate it. This way, you will have not just a one-shot test, but a long living regression test, and as such your investment in testing yields not just one pay off, but residual and passive pay off.	[reply]