[274] in ad-lib
More about testing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ninadm@MIT.EDU)
Mon Apr 3 11:46:17 1995
From: ninadm@MIT.EDU
To: opac-lib@MIT.EDU
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 1995 11:45:36 EDT
------- Forwarded Message
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 95 09:54:04
From: gyoung@MIT.EDU (Grant Young )
To: mgm@MIT.EDU (Marilyn McSweeney )
cc: bog-lib@MIT.EDU, acq2@MIT.EDU, ad-cat@MIT.EDU, gyoung@MIT.EDU,
sbyrd@MIT.EDU, perkins@MIT.EDU, donnaon@MIT.EDU, cfollett@MIT.EDU,
efinnie@MIT.EDU, ninadm@MIT.EDU, csrobins@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Testing Group
Functional groups can go ahead and start testing as soon as they are ready.
Things they should keep in mind:
1. Document all tests. There should be enough documentation to recreate
the test exactly.
2. Be aware that some testing might need to be repeated if there are
changes to the system. As the testing plan evolves some earlier tests may
not fit or be appropriate.
3. Advance is likely to require more cross-functional testing that GLIS or
CD-Barton ever did.
I took the broader view of the testing coordinators group's function but I
certainly anticipated that the implementation groups would take the bulk of
the decision-making on what to test and how. Particularly on how to blend
the RFP and the documentation together into a test plan.
In my opinion, testing's primary purpose is to provide the users with the
confidence that the system does what they believe it should do under all
situations (or understand why it doesn't). The implementation groups have
to own the testing of their areas for this to be accomplished. The
auditors' primary concern beyond the narrow systems questions is that the
users of the system have fully checked off on the system's functionality
and have been involved in the system's testing.
- -- Grant
>In your message of Fri, 31 Mar 95 18:04:06 you said:
>
>To: gyoung@MIT.EDU
>Cc: bog-lib@MIT.EDU, acq2@MIT.EDU
>Subject: Testing Group
>Date: Fri, 31 Mar 95 18:04:06
>From: mgm@MIT.EDU (Marilyn McSweeney )
>
>Hi, Grant: When I reported on the BOG/Matt discussion in our ACQ2 meeting
>on 3/30, I discovered that we had some different recollections about what
>the purpose of the Testing Group was going to be. Here's what some of us
>remembered from the BOG meeting of 3/23:
>
>Group to be composed of Grant and testing coordinators from the different
>functions would be convened very soon to
>
>1. discuss and share testing strategy for the different functional areas,
> recognizing that testing might not be "one size fits all".
>2. design an appropriate test reporting form(s)
>3. decide how to test across functions
>4. discuss how to fit in the RFP with the Users Guide as an outline of
> what to test
>5. insure that whatever "test plan" we develop meets Institute audit
>requirements, as well as system acceptance.
>
>This may be phrased badly, but you probably get the idea of what we were
>thinking. Some folks had this broad view, while others were thinking that
>the testing group was primarily going to stick to no. 3 on the list above.
>Can you provide some clarification for us? I know the Ad-Cat group has
>already done some good work on this, and we've got some ideas, but were
>uncertain how far to go before the group was convened... Thanks, MGM
>
>
>------- End of Forwarded Message
------- End of Forwarded Message
