Sometime I do adhoc testing but bug finding percentage is very low.In an interview I mentioned I perform adhoc testing but interviewer said is not it adhoc testing loss of time.In that time I have no logic for that question.But now I must say that for a tight schedule adhoc testing is loss of time.If your test coverage covers all boundary values then it may not require adhoc testing.Plz give your opinionSometime I do adhoc testing but bug finding percentage is very low.In an interview I mentioned I perform adhoc testing but interviewer said is not it adhoc testing loss of time.In that time I have no logic for that question.But now I must say that for a tight schedule adhoc testing is loss of time.If your test coverage covers all boundary values then it may not require adhoc testing.Plz give your opinion

Views: 1863

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Azad - You know, in light of the discussions, articles, legacy definitions, and arguments I have seen in the last few years, I no longer know what that means anymore.

I went to a few dictionaries online. A few present "ad hoc" as a free-style approach to whatever you are doing. But most define it as "for the special purpose or end presently under consideration", such as in an ad hoc committee or an ad hoc report. The former definition is more of a slang meaning used by some to contrast with structured tests.

I have found that testing is most effective if performed with a base charter to guide the session - which still fits the "special purpose" definition of ad hoc!

Sorry Azad, I don't agree ad-Hoc testing to be loss of time. Most of the time we do ad-Hoc testing to see if we are not missing any thing. And you will find very help and agree with me that Test Case are just not enough to say application is bug free. Many times we miss any test case scenarios which you can include once you start doing ad-Hoc testing. Also small budget project prefer ad-Hoc testing.

 

I will say in reveres that ad-Hoc testing can save your time..

Please add your valuable comments.

If you're doing ad hoc testing, then how would you know which is a bug and be sure that you are not missing anything.

Ad-hoc testing should be done in a controlled manner then only it will bring you results otherwise it is a waste time.

Just banging your keyboard without using your brain to learn anything about the product will not find you any bugs.

Liked your post..........Without target all the tests are waste of time.Thanks

Hi Md Moeen Ajaz Khan,

Actually this topic is a controversial topic. I think more than 90% members will disagree like you. I want say for live (in market) vs. demo (in developing period) project testing. Ad-hoc testing in live site may not bring anything fruitful which can happen for demo projects. For small projects test case may cover all the inputs……..Actuall currently I am doing ad-hoc and I am irritated.

Thanks

I think  you really really need to define what you mean by 'ad hoc' testing

 

Please let us know what your definition of it is and how you are doing it and why you find it 'irritating'

In my view,Ad-hoc testing is a testing without test case,without pre-planning.You can search for any issue that is logical and reproduce able.

Okay, do you recognise any of the skills and techniques described here:

 http://www.developsense.com/resources.html

 

There's a lot of information there, if you're short of time, you might want to start with this blog post:

http://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/370

 

If you're finding that you run out of ideas pretty fast, and that your testing isn't particularly fruitful, then I'd suggest picking one or two of the resources up there and trying to apply them in your next session. It sounds rather like you're getting frustrated because you're just trying to throw yourself at the product under test without any kind of structure or analysis to help you - which is going to be pretty exhausting!

+1 for Annas post - Michael & James are really pioneering testing without (much) pre-planning.

 

They glean a lot of their info from Cem Kaner, who arguably conceptualised the term "Exploratory Testing" which formalises ad-hoc testing.

 

Also, dont forget James Whittaker who is taking the idea of exploratory testing tours to all new levels... (personally I feel he has taken the tour concept in a new direction by using terms & ideas which need translating in order to be understood by non-testers.)

Maybe this is a case of a self-fulfilling misconception. If you define ad hoc as being testing without pre-planning, there's a danger you'll assume that you don't have to think about it beforehand, that it's just going straight in and thrashing around in the vague hope you'll find something. That's not a formula for a worthwhile testing session.
If you assume it's a waste of time then there's every chance that it will be.
I think Ad-Hoc testing is very important as we always find bugs that we do not using the system testing method. I always include this as apart of the test plan as it has always proven very beneficial
In my view, Ad-hoc testing is extremely important because the end-users are actually ad-hoc users of your applications. The end users don't follow any test requirements or test cases while using these applications. So, ad-hoc testing helps you cover the scenarios that cannot be covered by test cases.

RSS

Adverts

Ministry of Testing

© 2014   Created by Rosie Sherry.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service