https://www.javatpoint.com/difference-between-object-oriented-testing-and-conventional-testing#:~:text=In%20object%2Doriented%20testing%2C%20the,encounter%20in%20the%20real%20world.

Object Oriented testing focuses on the behavior of an object or class within an  object oriented system with its goal being to ensure any interaction or expected behaviors are correctly carried out when the system is used. This type of testing also heavily relies on ‘real world’ situations for example when writing test cases you would base your cases on things that the system is likely to interact with in the real world input wise which makes it easier to identify any possible behavioral issues within the system. There are three different testing phases which are commonly used in object oriented programming which are Unit testing, integration testing and system testing. Unit testing is used when testing classes or objects while isolated from the rest of the software, integration testing is used to verify that objects or classes are able to properly work together and system testing is used when testing an entire system to verify that the system itself works properly. Object oriented testing also requires the tester to have knowledge of a system’s inner workings in order to properly test it. This type of testing obviously is used on object oriented software which would be any software that is written using an object oriented language so in that aspect it is limited as object oriented testing would not be relevant or necessary to software which is not in the object oriented domain.

I found this article useful as it gets straight to the point when it comes to outlining the basic idea behind object oriented testing but it also chooses to compare it to conventional testing which helps the reader to differentiate between some of the different attributes of the two testing types as well as some of their similarities. This really helps when it comes to understanding why object oriented testing is defined as its own type of testing when their are already many other testing methods. This article helped me gain a greater understanding of object oriented testing which will help me to think more in depth about the cases I am able to write while testing in the future. The specific use of real world scenarios mentioned in this article was particularly interesting to me as I had not previously thought about how using real scenarios would typically provide more accurate results and or errors as compared to randomly selected scenarios which will also influence how I write test cases in the future.

From the blog CS@Worcester – Dylan Brown Computer Science by dylanbrowncs and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

This week the pattern I decided to write about is from chapter 2. The pattern titled “Expose Your Ignorance” discusses something I’ve had to experience recently: letting those you’re working with fill the gaps in your knowledge. This section opens up with this quote by Jake Scruggs in “My Apprenticeship at Object Mentor”. The quote is “Tomorrow I need to look stupider and feel better about it. This staying quiet and trying to guess what’s going on isn’t working so well.” Opening this topic with that quote is impactful because I think a lot of people feel shame and would call themselves stupid for simple gaps in their knowledge when others have high expectations for them. It’s important to acknowledge that it’s okay to not know everything and be transparent about it instead of struggling alone while deadlines approach.

When I was working on a website with a group of other developers, we were all transparent with each other about our knowledge gaps for the tech stack we had to work with. This allowed us to play off of each other’s strengths and weaknesses. Some of us were more knowledgeable about the front end while others were more knowledgeable about what was required for the backend. I was more unfamiliar with what the front end required so I worked on the backend team. When we started working on the project, I was transparent about my lack of knowledge about JavaScript, routes, controllers, and HTTP requests. My team leader spent some time going over the material with me and provided some resources to research on my own. I then looked for more resources to learn. We also made an effort for everyone to learn a bit more about both the front end and the back end.

 In the text, it said, “Conceding to unspoken pressures and telling people what they want to hear is not a good way to build strong relationships.” I agree with this because our transparency made sure we were able to help each other grow and in turn strengthen our relationships with each other. Your reputation will be built off of your willingness to learn. There wasn’t any part that I could disagree with. When you’re honest about your ignorance you will end up picking up knowledge about a variety of technologies which will make it easier for you to adapt down the road.

From the blog CS@Worcester – Live Laugh Code by Shamarah Ramirez and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

This week I decided to touch on static and dynamic testing. I wanted to find a blog that talks about different techniques for each type of testing. While searching I found the blog Static Testing VS Dynamic Testing – Key Differences testing by Kiruthika Devaraj. It first begins by generally defining the two types of testing. Devaraj first defines static testing as involving “testing the software without running it” and dynamic testing as involving “executing the program and testing its behavior in different scenarios”. They then go on to explicitly outline the differences in the next section. 

In the section titled “Differences Between Static Testing and Dynamic Testing”, they explain that static testing involves reviewing the documentation, design or code to check for defects and errors without executing the software. They also mention that this type of testing aims to identify issues early in software development when they are easier and less expensive to fix. They explained that dynamic testing involves executing the software and testing its behavior in different scenarios. They explain that during this process testers create test cases and run tests to identify defects and ensure the software meets the specified requirements. By testing the program against a variety of inputs, expected outputs, and error scenarios, this kind of testing essentially tries to evaluate the product’s functionality, performance, and security and ensure that it operates as predicted. In this section, the author uses bullet points and spacing to organize the information and make it easier to digest. 

The next section is a table that clearly outlines the differences in features like definitions, objectives, types of testing, timing, and results for static and dynamic testing. Static testing involves code review, walk-through, and inspection while the other involves unit, integration, system, acceptance, performance, security, and user acceptance testing. The author then explains how to choose between the two types of testing. They mention that it comes down to the specific requirements, objectives of the testing process, and desired outcomes. I enjoyed this article because the author got straight to the point when writing the article while clearly defining the use of each type of testing. I think the way they went about writing this informational piece was effective in keeping the reader’s attention by outlining the information in the simplest way possible. The use of bullet points and tables helped me to remember the information better. I am likely going to have to test my future personal projects so knowing the differences between the two types of testing and how to choose it was important to read about.

From the blog CS@Worcester – Live Laugh Code by Shamarah Ramirez and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

Unfortunately, just weeks after exploring test-project’s blog, it was shut down and replaced by a new blog in Tricentis. I was disappointed to find that I could no longer utilize this great resource. In searching however, I found that test-project was on its way out as far as automated testing goes, and this reaffirmed to me the ever changing world of software. In response I looked for blogs to improve my testing skills individually once more, and explored stickyminds again. The article I chose explained how practice can affect your software testing skill. The article’s title is Repetition in Practice by Justin Rohrman.

The article explores the pivotal role of repetition and practice in software testing, just as you would need in any other interest, like music. The author mentions his own experience with music in fact, and used his practice with music to inspire his software testing strategies. The article highlights the significance of deliberate practice in honing testing skills, advocating for an adaptive approach that considers the unique context of each testing scenario. A large failing of many software developers is the lack of practice, or lack of practice strategies. The article delves into some various methods for practicing software testing, to show how it connects with other interests. The most effective method introduced in the article is the ability to relate your own testing specific goals to other interests. For example: Heuristics is mentioned, and the author mentions if you like ‘Scrabble’ to play scrabble while thinking of heuristics and apply them to Scrabble. This will improve your skill in heuristics and allow you to improve it in your testing. This is an excellent strategy to help the mind focus on coding when other interests take priority. Overall the article emphasizes the importance of maintaining a growth mindset and embracing opportunities for learning and experimentation to refine testing proficiency. Outside of the article itself, there is a very valuable comment made by Michael Larsen. This comment mentions how testing is more subjective and abstract, and that it’s important to persevere when practicing. This is because unlike things like music, there are very little measurable improvements that you can see yourself, and you often have to wait for others to notice the improvements. This was an excellent thought provoking comment.

Through the CS-443 course, I have been considering how testing will play a role in my professional career and how I will develop these skills along with development. These kinds of practice strategies give me an engaging way to turn my brain into the mindset to code. This is very valuable to me, as often I can get very distracted. To be able to turn distractions into sources of thought for my own coding will be absolutely essential to developing my skills further. I chose this blog because I wanted to hone my skills but lack strategies to do so, and this applies beyond just testing for me.

Source:
https://www.stickyminds.com/article/repetition-practice?page=0%2C0

From the blog CS@Worcester – WSU CS Blog: Ben Gelineau by Ben Gelineau and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

I would like to continue my reflection on my fundamental software development skills and how to reinforce them in this week’s blog post. The “Concrete Skills” pattern in the “Emptying The Cup” chapter of “Apprenticeship Patterns” by David H. Hoover and Adewale Oshineye describes the practice of building and maintaining your concrete skill set to make yourself a better choice for a professional role. Knowledge on how to write build files, familiarity with the standard libraries for your chosen programming language, basic web design, and JavaScript are some examples of concrete skills given by the authors. Possession of these concrete skills are what allow you to stand out as a candidate for a developer position. The authors recommend constructing “toy implementations” to demonstrate your understanding of these concrete skills in an interview.

I wanted to read and reflect on this pattern because recently I was challenged with a programming problem where I needed to iterate through the nodes of a linked list. I remember learning about the linked list as a data structure in a previous course, and now in the elective course that I’m taking, we’ve been tasked with implementing a linked list as well as performing operations on it. The implementation of each linked list node as an object with a ‘head’ containing data, and a ‘tail’ that functioned as a pointer to the next node in the list was familiar to me. Despite my previous experience learning about the linked list, I still spent a long time implementing a function that would do something and then iterate through the linked list. I knew I had to repeatedly set the head of the list to its tail within a while loop until the data ‘head’ of the list was empty. It was only with the help of my classmates that I rediscovered how to express that implementation in code and properly operate on each element in a linked list, and then exit the while loop once the ‘head’ member variable of the node was empty. I realized that while I believed that I understood basic data structures like linked lists, trees, and queues conceptually, I struggled with implementing those design concepts when put to the test.

The pattern’s recommendation to demonstrate your concrete skills through small-scale projects has me reflecting on my goals for a project I started a few weeks ago and have only spent a few collective hours on since. I’ve been wanting to practice my design patterns, so I started a Java project called “MonsterFactory” as an exercise. I have a collection of Java classes like Zombie, Werewolf, or Vampire that all inherit from a Monster superclass and share some member variables and methods. I want to implement a MonsterFactory class that follows the Factory software design pattern that could instantiate whichever Monster subclass we could want in any given situation. This project could serve as a functional example of my understanding of software design patterns, and I could also expand upon it to take advantage of the libraries offered in Java. I’m primarily working with strings and integers as data types in this project but learning how to work with images as a data type to accompany each Monster could be an entirely achievable goal for me to add to this project.

From the blog CS@Worcester – Michael's Programming Blog by mikesprogrammingblog and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

Summary of Craft Over Art:

The “Craft over Art” pattern delves into the distinction between craftsmanship and artistic expression within the realm of software development. It emphasizes the importance of prioritizing craftsmanship, which entails mastering the fundamental skills and techniques required to create high-quality software, over the pursuit of artistic flair.

My reaction:

Upon encountering the “Craft over Art” pattern, I found myself reflecting deeply on the essence of software development as a craft. What struck me most was the notion that craftsmanship transcends mere creativity or innovation—it embodies a dedication to continuous learning, refinement, and adherence to best practices. This perspective has profoundly influenced my perception of my intended profession as a software developer.

Initially, I was drawn to software development by the allure of innovation and the opportunity to unleash my creativity through code. However, this pattern prompted me to reconsider the significance of honing my technical skills and adopting disciplined practices. It made me realize that while creativity has its place in software development, it is craftsmanship that truly underpins the creation of reliable, maintainable, and scalable software solutions.

Moreover, the pattern’s emphasis on mastery resonated with me on a personal level. It sparked a realization that becoming a proficient software developer requires more than just technical prowess—it demands a commitment to continuous improvement and a willingness to embrace challenges as opportunities for growth.

While I wholeheartedly agree with the premise of prioritizing craftsmanship over artistry in software development, I acknowledge that striking a balance between the two is essential. Creativity and innovation undoubtedly drive progress in our field, but without a solid foundation of craftsmanship, they risk being mere flashes in the pan. Therefore, I believe that the key lies in integrating artistic expression with the principles of craftsmanship, leveraging creativity to enhance the quality and elegance of our code.

“Craft over Art” pattern has been instrumental in shaping my understanding of software development as a craft. It has inspired me to prioritize mastery, discipline, and continuous learning in my journey as a software developer, ultimately guiding me towards the path of excellence in my profession.

From the blog CS@Worcester – Hieu Tran Blog by Trung Hiếu and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

In this week’s blog post, I will be discussing the “The White Belt” pattern discussed in chapter 2 of “Apprenticeship Patterns: Guidance for the Aspiring Software Craftsman” by Dave Hoover and Adewale Oshineye. This week, I chose this topic for my blog post because I think being able to set aside what you have learned in order to learn more is a difficult but important skill.

A quote early into this section that I can personally relate to discusses how your confidence in what you have already learned can cause you to have a harder time learning more. “You are struggling to learn new things, and it seems somehow harder than it was before to acquire new skills. The pace of your self-education seems to be slowing down despite your best efforts. You fear that your personal development may have stalled.” I have been in this position myself more than once. One approach the chapter mentions is called the not knowing stance.

The not-knowing stance, as mentioned in the chapter, is an approach to understanding that you do not and can not currently understand the entirety of what you are trying to accomplish. “Part of the approach Dave took as a family therapist included maintaining a not-knowing stance. Families in difficult circumstances were experiencing a unique reality that, despite his training, Dave knew he could not fully appreciate. While he acknowledged his skills at facilitating constructive questions and conversations, Dave was taught to refrain from believing that he had any expert knowledge into the realities that these families experienced. While this may seem counterintuitive, in reality, it fosters an attitude of respect and curiosity that opens up unforeseen possibilities and solutions. Rather than pushing solutions down on the family, Dave’s not knowing stance helped him to collaborate with the family to find solutions as a team.” As shown in this quote, embracing the not-knowing stance, can help you have a more open mind in trying to solve problems, or learn new things in different ways. Embracing the not-knowing stance is not only incredibly helpful in being able to learn new things, but can also help interpersonally, as shown by the quote.

From the blog CS@Worcester – P. McManus Worcester State CS Blog by patrickmcmanus1 and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

This week’s blog topic was chosen simply because I had zero knowledge of the term/topic. Jake Holy’s blog on Stochastic and Property-Based Testing blog covers the uses of each testing and effective tools used to implement each. Stochastic testing refers to the testing method that uses random inputs to test the behavior of the program. Rather than using predetermined inputs for test cases, stochastic utilizes various inputs to find unexpected bugs in the program. The main purpose of stochastic testing is to uncover errors through unorthodox methods. This method offers a wide testing coverage by testing all possible scenarios that might go unnoticed with traditional testing.

Property based testing refers to the method of testing by describing what the software should do rather than creating distinct test cases. Initially, testers establish properties that describes what the code should always do. This method of testing utilizes tools that automatically generate test cases to test these properties. After generating these cases, random inputs are utilized to ensure the properties are followed. The benefit of this testing method is testers are only required to declare the properties the code must follow. Instead of manually creating test cases and risking the possibility of missing a test case, these cases are generated for them. Property based testing guarantees effective test coverage. Additionally, this form of testing allows testers to focus on the abstraction and behavior of their code, allowing for a more robust product.

The blog goes in-depth with various testing tools, for example, a testing library created for the Haskell programming language called QuickCheck, which allows developers to write properties for their code which is automatically generated into test cases. QuickCheck has become a very popular tool to use for testing due to its automation, which is why it has been ported to other programming languages like Python and Scala.

The second tool that the blog mentions is Stimulant for Clojure. Similar to QuickCheck, Stimulant allows developers to define properties and it automatically generates test cases to test your program.

One thing that is mentioned in both testing libraries is shrinking. Shrinking refers to the method of finding the smallest input of a failing case, allowing developers to precisely pinpoint areas in the program that is causing the test case to fail. It is crucial that developers know their program has failed a test case, but it is even more crucial that they know why, so they can effectively fix the problem.

Blog: https://blog.jakubholy.net/2013/06/28/brief-intro-into-randomstochasticprobabilistic-testing/

From the blog CS@Worcester – Computer Science Through a Junior by Winston Luu and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.