Here’s an in-depth version of the reply I gave, with the benefit of links to deeper material.

To begin: application programming interfaces (APIs) are means by which we can use software to send commands to a product to make it do something. We do perform some testing on APIs themselves; interfaces represent one set of dimensions or factors or elements of the product. In a deeper sense, we’re not simply testing the APIs; we’re using them to control and observe the product, so that we can learn lots of things about it.

Now, there’s a problem with the first question: it implies that there is some kind of testing that is not exploratory. But all testing is exploratory. The idea that testing isn’t exploratory comes, in part, from a confusion between demonstrating that a product can work and testing to learn how it does work, and how it might not work.

The post Exploratory Testing appeared first on Rapid Software Testing.

The post Exploratory Testing 3.0 appeared first on Rapid Software Testing.

Go to the RST YouTube Channel

Test the AI, Dario!

We comment on Dario Amodei's belated call to slow down AI development.

Responsible people have been asking for better testing continuously since LLMs crashed onto the scene. Is the CEO of ...Anthropic finally hearing us?Show More

Now Playing

Test the AI, Dario!

We comment on Dario Amodei's belated call to slow down AI development. ...

We comment on Dario Amodei's belated call to slow down AI development.

Responsible people have been asking for better testing continuously since LLMs crashed onto the scene. Is the CEO of ...Anthropic finally hearing us?Show More

Now Playing

Quality Engineering #3

We now need to talk about the inward-facing aspect of QE. This is all ...

We now need to talk about the inward-facing aspect of QE. This is all about engineering the process to be more reliable. This looks different in the age of AI.

Now Playing

Testing AI: Beyond Test Cases

This is a talk I prepared for a Chinese testing conference. The main ...

This is a talk I prepared for a Chinese testing conference. The main thing I talk about here is metamorphic testing, which is a probabilistic approach to testing AI.

Now Playing

Quality Engineering #2: What About AI?

How does the Quality Engineering Tetrad work with AI?

How does the Quality Engineering Tetrad work with AI?

Now Playing

Unbearable Lightness of Model-Based Testing

An old but still totally relevant talk about the limitations of ...

An old but still totally relevant talk about the limitations of testing based on formalized models.

Now Playing

What is Quality Engineering?

We look at the difference between engineering and "quality ...

We look at the difference between engineering and "quality engineering." Is that word "quality" doi9ng anything?

Now Playing

Humans In The Way #4: Lazy Thinking

We look at the problem of Lazy critical thinking, which also relates ...

We look at the problem of Lazy critical thinking, which also relates to the critique of AI.

Specifically reference:

Zoe Bee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOMiiCmoFHM

Dr. Fox Lecture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rcr6UJwaPlQ

Now Playing

Live Astronomy w/Rob Bach

Now Playing

How to Think About Biases (For Testers)

Jon and James discuss ways of learning about biases and why that ...

Jon and James discuss ways of learning about biases and why that matters for software testers.

Now Playing

Stories From My Time On The Microsoft AntiTrust Remedies Trial

For first time, James Bach speaks publicly of his experience as an ...

For first time, James Bach speaks publicly of his experience as an expert witness in the Microsoft Antitrust Remedies Trial.

It was the most dramatic project of his life.

Now Playing

Humans In The Way #3

We look at the problem of AI generated analyses and consider the ...

We look at the problem of AI generated analyses and consider the "analyst's dilemma." To what degree should an analyst personally collect data, versus trusting others to collect it. This ...has big implications for using AI to help with analysis.Show More

Now Playing

Illustrating Pareto Principle in Automation in Testing

What I was showing Jon is a simple mathematical argument that it is ...

What I was showing Jon is a simple mathematical argument that it is better to "automate" in testing by focusing on "biggest bang for the buck" rather than "low hanging ...fruit" (low cost first) or "Biggest win" (high value first). You should consider cost vs. value on a case-by-case basis, which will give you the so-called Pareto solution (20/80).

However, on a different level, I was showing him the difference between doing a spreadsheet "manually" vs. using Co-pilot. Note that, though Co-pilot did okay at the task, we stumbled into a big bug-- a bug that I suspect Microsoft doesn't know about because this is the sort of thing that is difficult to automate...

The bug was that when we set Co-pilot to performing a task, then navigated away to another Excel window and then navigated back, we found it not only stopped performing that task, but lost all of the context and transcript for everything that cam before. Damn it, Microsoft! Then, when we tried to ask Co-pilot about saving the history, we found that there is no automatic or in-built way to save the history automatically. WHY DO AI VENDORS THINK WE DON"T EVER WANT TO LOOK BACK AT HOW THE WORK WAS DONE?Show More

Load More

The post Video Highlights from RST Online Classes appeared first on Rapid Software Testing.