Laws of Manual Testing

Laws of Manual Testing

Bug Rate Principle

Decreasing bug rates validate effective testing.

Principle of Speed

Manual testing slows development, to speed up quality.

The Teacher Paradox

If someone is selling a philosophy of manual testing — they are wrong.

Test Count Paradox

Test counts are not correlated with value, only cost.

Law of Test Passes

The best testers don't start and stop.

Law Of Timing

Testing should start when it makes sense, not always early.

Law Of Coverage

Estimates of code or test coverage are wrong.

Law of Smoke

Always more fire where there is smoke.

Testers be Testing Principal

Teachers and preachers. aren’t testers, beware.

Bug and Coverage Paradox

Non-testers only care about ship-blockers.

Priority principal

Test prioritization should be greatly deprioritized.

Myth of the Right Way To Test

Testing is all contextual and still an art, not a science.

Waldo Paradox

The bugs are where you haven’t looked yet.

Paradox of Quality Ownership

Testers will still be held accountable for quality, and they should be.

Law of Time

All software will break given enough time.

Insurance Principal

Testing is insurance and due diligence.

Law of Quantification

Perfectly repeatable / documented test cases are essential.

Paradox of More Testing

Diminishing returns means you always test more than you should.

Agile Myth

Agile just means ‘less waterfall’.

Law of Agile Testing

Simply test the newest stuff, and the most risky.

TDD Myth

No one does TDD.

Law of Learning

Most learning by testers should be about the world, the users and the context — not the application.

Myth of Formalization

Cucumber and User Stories are not formal methods.

Law of AI

The more a tester or vendor mentions AI, the less likely they know what it is.

Myth of Learning

If someone is ‘learning about the app’, they are just bored with testing in general.

Law of Testing Simplicity

Beware of testers redefining words, they are poor testers.

User Paradox

You are not the user.

Ratio Principle

Developer-tester ratios should be proportional to the software’s need for accuracy multiplied by its behavioral variability.

Test Marketing Paradox

The usefulness of a tool is inversely proportional to the marketing claims and price.

Tester Efficacy Paradox:

Testers add bugs, not software quality.

Reporting Principle

Other than 100%, percentages aren’t useful.


— Jason Arbon, TestNerd

Heemeng (Chris) Foo

Leadership in Quality Engineering, Test and Engineering Excellence. Startup advisor.

1 年

Jason Arbon if you haven't written a book about these you should :)

回复
Andrew Kelly

Rebel App Studio, Software Tester, Quality/Team Coach, Test Management/Consultancy, IT QA Consultant - Mobile and Web specialist.

1 年

Really hard to tell what the goal of this is. Sort of came across as leverage from a lot of fallacies of argument to create some laws, but not sure if that was the intent. I've noticed myself sometimes when posting about testing, it can raise fallacy of argument consideration. This can be at times due to contextual bias in my views or that topic needs more back and forth discussion to clarify the ideas and sometimes a simple online post removes that opportunity so opens it up for the fallacy of argument consideration. It's definitely good to be aware of though.

Dinesh Ashok Velhal

Test Automation | Generative AI | DevOps | Continuous Testing

1 年

A useful list to spot the dogma in testing!

Daniel Webb

Principal Engineer | Head of Test | Test Architect | Architect | Coach & Mentor | XP, Simple, Clean Code | Software Development

1 年

I have worked in testing for 20 years and this whole post feels opaque. Am I missing something? It feels like some sort of ‘in joke’ for a clique I’m not a part of. This is painful. What’s your point?

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Jason Arbon的更多文章

  • AI Coding Agents--Websites Tested

    AI Coding Agents--Websites Tested

    The hottest demos these days are AI Coding Agents — and the competition among them is fierce. These AI coding…

    1 条评论
  • 2025: AI in QA Predictions

    2025: AI in QA Predictions

    Every QA professional will need to demonstrate how they’re leveraging AI in 2025. The technology is accelerating…

    19 条评论
  • AI and the Testing Triad

    AI and the Testing Triad

    ‘AI Testing’ represents a new category of software testing. Until now, testing has existed as a duopoly of Manual…

    21 条评论
  • AI and Testing Podcast: STARWest Keynote

    AI and Testing Podcast: STARWest Keynote

    Ever feel like you blink and the tech world's moved on without you? Yeah. Well, buckle up, buttercup.

    12 条评论
  • QnA: AI for your Testing Career

    QnA: AI for your Testing Career

    There were too many questions to get to during my session at #TestMuConf 2024 Conference presentation, that we couldn't…

    2 条评论
  • AI’s Testplan for CrowdStrike

    AI’s Testplan for CrowdStrike

    We’ve heard a lot about the Crowdstrike issue from human engineers and testers — but, surprisingly, we haven’t heard…

    4 条评论
  • AI Changed My Coding Style

    AI Changed My Coding Style

    I’ve found that coding with an AI partner has dramatically transformed my coding practices and style?—?some of those…

    4 条评论
  • GPT4o: Safety Tests Start to Fail

    GPT4o: Safety Tests Start to Fail

    A test suite monitoring AI safety just starting failing— not sure what to do. Test results are up at https://www.

    9 条评论
  • Testers Discuss AI

    Testers Discuss AI

    Thanks to Marcel Veselka , Juraj ?abka for a fun conversation that spanned AI, and the future of testing. makeITfun…

    7 条评论
  • AB Testing Podcast: AI (Part 2)

    AB Testing Podcast: AI (Part 2)

    Thanks again to Alan and Brent for inviting me to geek out with them--always a blast because they are amazingly open…

    7 条评论

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了