Category Archives: CS@Worcester

Unit Testing: Decision Tables

Week 5 – 2/23/2025

For this week’s blog, I recently came across an insightful article titled “Decision Table Testing: A Comprehensive Guide” on the Testsigma website. This article provided a detailed overview of decision table testing, a technique for testing system behavior for various input combinations. The article not only defined the concept but also went over its applicability, benefits, and practical applications.

I chose this resource because we had just done a POGIL activity on decision table testing in class, and I wanted to learn more about how it works in real-world circumstances. The article stood out to me because it was well organized, simple to understand, and contained practical examples to make the subject more approachable. As someone who is still learning about software testing, I found this material to be both instructive and accessible.

The article begins by defining decision table testing as a black-box testing technique for determining how a system responds to different input combinations. It then describes the structure of a decision table, which is made up of conditions (inputs) and actions (outputs), as well as how to generate one. What I found most useful was the step-by-step illustration of how to apply decision table testing to a login system. This example helped me visualize how the strategy works in practice.

One of the most important takeaways for me was the emphasis on the value of decision table testing in dealing with complex business logic. The article explained how this technique assures that all conceivable scenarios are examined, lowering the likelihood of missing key edge cases. This spoke to me because, in my limited experience, I’ve seen how easy it is to overlook specific input combinations, particularly in systems with several decision points. The blog also covered decision table testing’s limits, such as its inefficiency for systems with a large number of inputs, which helped me understand when to utilize this technique and when to look into alternatives.

Reading this article has greatly increased my understanding of decision table testing. I’m now more confident in my ability to apply this strategy to future projects. For example, I envision myself utilizing decision tables to evaluate systems with well-defined criteria, such as payment processing or eligibility verification. In addition, the blog emphasized the need for thorough testing and considering all possible circumstances, which I will include in my testing methods.

Overall, this article was a helpful resource for my learning experience. It not only simplified a subject that I was having trouble understanding, but it also provided practical insights that I may use in the future. This article is highly recommended to anyone looking for a clear and practical explanation of decision table testing.

https://testsigma.com/blog/decision-table-testing/

From the blog CS@Worcester – computingDiaries by hndaie and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

On Integrating Automated Testing

In this post, I’ll be discussing my thoughts on a recent article I read from the Software Testing Help website, which can be found here. The piece really struck me because it reinforced many of the ideas I’ve come to believe about the role of testing in the software development lifecycle, particularly how automation can improve both speed and quality. I’ve always been a fan of automated testing, but this article helped me think more deeply about how it should fit into the broader testing strategy.

One of the key points in the article was the idea of balancing automation with manual testing. While automation is critical for repetitive tasks and quick feedback, the author pointed out that certain aspects of testing—like user experience—cannot be fully captured by automated scripts. This really resonated with me, as I’ve encountered situations where automation was great for catching functional issues, but it missed some of the nuance that a manual tester might be able to identify or spot. I think it’s a reminder that we should never rely too heavily on automation, and that human insight still has an important role to play.

In my own experience, automated testing has been a huge time-saver, especially for regression testing. It helps ensure that previously working functionality remains intact as new features are added. But I’ve also seen the limitations, particularly when automated tests don’t cover edge cases or fail to reflect real-world scenarios. I’ve learned that a good testing strategy needs to integrate both approaches—automation for efficiency and manual testing for critical thinking and creativity. I’ve gotten in the habit of mentally doing a once over to make sure that all my automated tests still cover everything I can think of, instead of just blindly assuming they do.

The article also emphasized the importance of writing testable code to support automation. This is something I think I can improve on in my own work. By considering testability from the start, we can avoid technical debt and create more maintainable, reliable systems. Writing code with testing in mind encourages good design practices and ensures that automated tests are effective.

Lastly, the article touched on continuous integration (CI) and how automated tests play a vital role in CI pipelines. This is something I’ve been trying to implement more consistently, and I’m seeing the value of catching bugs early, before they make it to production. It’s a mindset of constant improvement that aligns well with the idea of being a “Software Apprentice”—always refining and enhancing our process.

In conclusion, this article reaffirmed the importance of finding the right balance between automated and manual testing. As I continue my journey as a developer, I’ll be more mindful of how I integrate both into my workflow to ensure quality and efficiency.