Talk:Test strategy

Untitled

This is not an encyclopedic article. It primarily does not define the difference between this and a test plan, and every other document used in the release process. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alianys.mena.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan page

The main reason that this is an orphan page is that the term is not used this way in most organizations. A test strategy is usually a single line in a test plan, not a corporate-level testing charter.--Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this comment. In UK organisations at least, a test strategy is a product in its own right, produced by the test manager to define 'How' testing will be carried out. Typical contents includes roles/responsibilities, types of testing, entry/exit crtiteria, defect management process, governance etc. The test plan follows, authored by test leads, and details 'what' will be tested (traceability, test conditions, schedule and so on). James Stevens 15 Apr 2010 194.116.198.179 (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the case within all U.K. organizations or simply the ones with which you've been exposed? In the SQAtester Yahoo! discussion group there is a testing trainer and consultant from the U.K. who has indicated that the term is frequently, but not always, used in some companies, but not all companies, where they follow a very strict and structured scheme for organizing documentation. The term is also occasionally used in North America, but by-and-large it is not used in this way. This is why I wrote "most" above rather than all. The fact that this page is still a virtual orphan is that the term is not commonly used in this manner with test plan being the preferred term and with the latter subsuming the former as a sub-section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just badly written

The main problem with this page is that it is badly written. The chief problem being that jargon is not grounded in terms that can be easily understood by someone outside of the software industry. To start with it needs to be explicitly stated that some / many companies use the term 'testing plan' as the discussion above explains. Just saying 'compare to ...' is not useful. The paragraph "Test strategies describe how the product risks of the stakeholders are mitigated at the test-level" - what are stakeholders in this context? Why should I care about their product risks? And importantly, what does 'mitigation' mean in this context? This sentence reads as gibberish and makes the rest of the paragraph hard to understand. Roles and Responsibilities - What is a test lead? This term has me reaching for my multimeter. Risks and Mitigation - 'Sample risks are dependency of completion of coding done by sub-contractors, or capability of testing tools.' - This sentence uses improper grammatical constructs and raises a 'WTF error'! At this point I stopped reading and decided to look for better written advice. Test schedule - 'regression testing' needs explaining. Also smaller (non corporate) examples need to be considered. In fact the whole subject might be better explained from the POV of a relatively simple piece of code where the development 'team' is a single developer. In fact discussions of the corporate structure of a large team are somewhat superfluous to the explanation of how testing might be carried out. Test Priorities - "Some other test cases may be treated like cosmetic [...] This priority levels must be clearly stated." - At this point I realise that the original author does not use English as a first language. While this is not a capital offence, I am reading this on en.wiki.x.io and the syntax errors here are not just cosmetic, they actually make the text incomprehensible. Requirements traceability matrix - HLD, LLD need expanding & explaining. In summary, this entire article needs rewriting or binning. Subjects like this need to be covered in such a way that someone outside the industry, with a general interest in programming can grasp the concepts. Document failed basic comprehensibility test. Tim flatus (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree that it's badly written, but that's not the main problem. The main problem is that the term does not have universal acceptability. The article was originally written by a citizen from India where the term means very much what a Test Plan means in the rest of the English-speaking world. There are pockets in the US who hold a similar definition, but certainly not the same. Inline citations to support the prose are probably needed with a re-write. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

India Education Program course assignment

This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program.

The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 20:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]