Conventional testing methodologies are often sufficient to ensure high quality standards in the application under testing (AUT). However, there are often development-firms that give QA precedence over all else – this may be either due to their corporate principles or due to the business/functional requirements of the AUT. Regardless of why, firms in such cases often look to go beyond the conventional and explore better ways to test the same application.
The quest for better testing requires us to get creative. The best way to achieve this is to utilize conventional testing methodologies as basis and apply modifications to the way they are implemented. Some highly effective implementations are as follows.
- Proactive QA
The simplest way to ensure quality is to ensure there is no flaw. Instead of waiting for the whole product to be developed, testers should go through the design plans, discuss implementation strategy with the developers, and then use their own experiences/historically available data in order to line out all the possible flaws that the product may potentially contain. This allows developers to plan for bugs before-hand and write their code accordingly.
- Divide and Conquer
Test coverage is easily among the most important aspects to consider while testing. Dividing the overall code into modules and testing each module separately/in specific combinations drastically increases overall test coverage. This is because dividing and conquering the overall code not only increases task manageability, it also allows for identifying module-specific bugs that may have otherwise remained hidden when looked at from an overall perspective.
- Inverse-Requirement Testing
There are many cases where an application satisfies all its requirements but also ends up doing more than required/permitted. For example, an application that is only supposed to “read” but ends up doing both “read” and “write”. The best way to avoid such situations is to go beyond conventional requirement testing and perform inverse-requirement testing where AUT is tested for everything that it is not supposed to be/do.
- Maximum Automation
Although automation has gained traction in recent years, it is still commonplace for QA teams to take on manual testing tasks that could just as easily be performed by a machine. The nature of every manual testing task thus needs to be studied to ensure that any machine-workable task is isolated and appropriately automated. Automation-based testing is faster with higher test coverage. It is hence a much better alternative to manual testing (wherever applicable)
- Hybrid Testing
Different testing techniques/strategies possess different advantages and shortcomings. Combining two or more strategies to ensure the best of both is what hybrid testing is all about. While the term is vague and can be applied to any scenario where multiple techniques/strategies are mashed together, some of the most important forms of hybrid testing are as follows:
- Direction-based: Combines both top-down integration testing as well as bottom-up integration testing
- Management-based: Allows both centralized as well as de-centralized management of QA
- Automation-based: Combines both Data and Keyword-driven test frameworks
Beyond the implementations discussed above, it is always a great move to encourage QA teams to participate in R & D in order to produce more effective test strategies. The above implementations treat “better testing” as the process of ensuring that the AUT performs reliably and in the expected manner.