Talk:Test plan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

I've expanded it a bit, specifically in the realm of software testing. I have not extensively wikified the IEEE template. I have simply taken an existing open page from the University of Toronto at Scarborough and made a few changes to make it better for wiki display and updating some information. Hardware engineering may want to add their own section. I'm not sure what to add for economics.--Walter Görlitz 15:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Please don't "wikify" the testing section when the links are irrelevant to testing. A software release is not part of release criteria. Risk in general is not part of risk management. I'm going to de-wikify what has been incorrectly wikified. --Walter Görlitz 06:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Errors in this page

There are several errors on this page reference the IEEE 829-1998. Though the listed items are good ideas, they are NOT part of the IEEE standard. If the standard is quoted, it should be adhered to. Perhaps a supplemental listing of "other good topics"?

From IEEE 829-1998:

a) Test plan identifier;
b) Introduction;
c) Test items;
d) Features to be tested;
e) Features not to be tested;
f) Approach;
g) Item pass/fail criteria;
h) Suspension criteria and resumption requirements;
i) Test deliverables;
j) Testing tasks;
k) Environmental needs;
l) Responsibilities;
m) Staffing and training needs;
n) Schedule;
o) Risks and contingencies;
p) Approvals.

Also notice that item "Ramaining Test Task" should be "Testing Tasks"; which has a different meaning.

That's because when it was added, it was the original format, but it has been modified by others and no longer is identical to the pure IEEE format. --Walter Görlitz 19:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

With those changes the article cannot be a trusted source of information. Can you make fixes to return it to original state? Vitc 23:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weird unclear sentence

The sentences: "Cem Kaner, co-author of Testing Computer Software (ISBN 0471358460), has suggested that test plans are written for two very different purposes. Sometimes the test plan is a product; sometimes it's a tool. It's too easy, but also too expensive, to confuse these goals." are totally unencyclopedic, unclear, and the presence of an ISBN link (buy this book), makes it fishy.

Either that distinction is meaningful (and should be explained clearly), or it is not (and it should be removed).

They're very encyclopedic. The idea is that test plans are often written without any understand of why they should be written or how they should be used. Your comments should be signed and the comments should be left in place and clarified. --Walter Görlitz 19:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the author of the critic, but I must agree with it. The information is a sugestion from an author in a book, expressing an opinion and is not developed in an explanatory way. It should be explained more carefully. --n@zgul 15:20, 6 Dec 2007

I think it should be removed. It does not clearly state the direct disadvantages of using test plans, and did not prove that using an alternative or not using test plans at all is more efficient/effective. The writing style is also like the ones used in magazine articles. --s7even