For my last blog post for this class, I found an article online that
talks about the practice of shifting-left in software quality assurance.
This approach more or less emphasizes the importance of introducing quality
assurance to earlier phases in the development process. Testing from the
initial phase of development is supposed to prevent the amount of defects
and issues from piling up at the end of development. Having testing done
throughout the development phases can also lessen the workload for the
quality assurance team.

https://hackernoon.com/embracing-the-shift-left-approach-revolutionizing-quality-assurance-in-software-development

According to the article, the cost of testing and post-production vastly
outweighs the cost of development and planning. It posits that testing
earlier and more frequently catches bugs earlier on, and reduces the overall
cost of development. This goes very hand in hand with the agile software
development methodology we learned about last semester. The world of
software development has become much more fast paced, and the current
landscape pushes for finished products with minimal defects at
launch. 

I  have seen online the mentality that a product that ships with any
problems is often ostracized. Consumers want minimal issues and problems
when interacting with any kind of software, and that goes doubly for large
companies. Having software testers involved since the start of development
would allow teams a more seamless development experience.

One model for development that the article proposes has each stage of
development separated by a quality check gate, in which test cases are
implemented. When all defects are found and fixed, only then can the
development team move on to the next stage of the process. I think this a
very good system that could fit well within the agile sprint methodology.
Leave time at the end of the sprint, but before the sprint retrospective,
for the quality assurance team to check the code, then at the retrospective
they can sign off on the state of the project. If there are any bugs that
could not be fixed within this sprint, the testers can assign it as an issue
for the next one. 

During the Development Capstone project, this could be used to manage the
teams next semester. Have team members focus on quality assurance near the
end of the sprint, and then collect their feedback at the sprint
retrospective. Another way would be to have one or two teams act as quality
assurance throughout the whole semester. Either way it could save a bit of
headaches for everyone.

From the blog CS@Worcester Alejandro Professional Blog by amontesdeoca and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 For my last blog post for this class, I found an article online that
talks about the practice of shifting-left in software quality assurance.
This approach more or less emphasizes the importance of introducing quality
assurance to earlier phases in the development process. Testing from the
initial phase of development is supposed to prevent the amount of defects
and issues from piling up at the end of development. Having testing done
throughout the development phases can also lessen the workload for the
quality assurance team.

https://hackernoon.com/embracing-the-shift-left-approach-revolutionizing-quality-assurance-in-software-development

According to the article, the cost of testing and post-production vastly
outweighs the cost of development and planning. It posits that testing
earlier and more frequently catches bugs earlier on, and reduces the overall
cost of development. This goes very hand in hand with the agile software
development methodology we learned about last semester. The world of
software development has become much more fast paced, and the current
landscape pushes for finished products with minimal defects at
launch. 

I  have seen online the mentality that a product that ships with any
problems is often ostracized. Consumers want minimal issues and problems
when interacting with any kind of software, and that goes doubly for large
companies. Having software testers involved since the start of development
would allow teams a more seamless development experience.

One model for development that the article proposes has each stage of
development separated by a quality check gate, in which test cases are
implemented. When all defects are found and fixed, only then can the
development team move on to the next stage of the process. I think this a
very good system that could fit well within the agile sprint methodology.
Leave time at the end of the sprint, but before the sprint retrospective,
for the quality assurance team to check the code, then at the retrospective
they can sign off on the state of the project. If there are any bugs that
could not be fixed within this sprint, the testers can assign it as an issue
for the next one. 

During the Development Capstone project, this could be used to manage the
teams next semester. Have team members focus on quality assurance near the
end of the sprint, and then collect their feedback at the sprint
retrospective. Another way would be to have one or two teams act as quality
assurance throughout the whole semester. Either way it could save a bit of
headaches for everyone.

From the blog CS@Worcester Alejandro Professional Blog by amontesdeoca and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 For my last blog post for this class, I found an article online that
talks about the practice of shifting-left in software quality assurance.
This approach more or less emphasizes the importance of introducing quality
assurance to earlier phases in the development process. Testing from the
initial phase of development is supposed to prevent the amount of defects
and issues from piling up at the end of development. Having testing done
throughout the development phases can also lessen the workload for the
quality assurance team.

https://hackernoon.com/embracing-the-shift-left-approach-revolutionizing-quality-assurance-in-software-development

According to the article, the cost of testing and post-production vastly
outweighs the cost of development and planning. It posits that testing
earlier and more frequently catches bugs earlier on, and reduces the overall
cost of development. This goes very hand in hand with the agile software
development methodology we learned about last semester. The world of
software development has become much more fast paced, and the current
landscape pushes for finished products with minimal defects at
launch. 

I  have seen online the mentality that a product that ships with any
problems is often ostracized. Consumers want minimal issues and problems
when interacting with any kind of software, and that goes doubly for large
companies. Having software testers involved since the start of development
would allow teams a more seamless development experience.

One model for development that the article proposes has each stage of
development separated by a quality check gate, in which test cases are
implemented. When all defects are found and fixed, only then can the
development team move on to the next stage of the process. I think this a
very good system that could fit well within the agile sprint methodology.
Leave time at the end of the sprint, but before the sprint retrospective,
for the quality assurance team to check the code, then at the retrospective
they can sign off on the state of the project. If there are any bugs that
could not be fixed within this sprint, the testers can assign it as an issue
for the next one. 

During the Development Capstone project, this could be used to manage the
teams next semester. Have team members focus on quality assurance near the
end of the sprint, and then collect their feedback at the sprint
retrospective. Another way would be to have one or two teams act as quality
assurance throughout the whole semester. Either way it could save a bit of
headaches for everyone.

From the blog CS@Worcester Alejandro Professional Blog by amontesdeoca and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 For my last blog post for this class, I found an article online that
talks about the practice of shifting-left in software quality assurance.
This approach more or less emphasizes the importance of introducing quality
assurance to earlier phases in the development process. Testing from the
initial phase of development is supposed to prevent the amount of defects
and issues from piling up at the end of development. Having testing done
throughout the development phases can also lessen the workload for the
quality assurance team.

https://hackernoon.com/embracing-the-shift-left-approach-revolutionizing-quality-assurance-in-software-development

According to the article, the cost of testing and post-production vastly
outweighs the cost of development and planning. It posits that testing
earlier and more frequently catches bugs earlier on, and reduces the overall
cost of development. This goes very hand in hand with the agile software
development methodology we learned about last semester. The world of
software development has become much more fast paced, and the current
landscape pushes for finished products with minimal defects at
launch. 

I  have seen online the mentality that a product that ships with any
problems is often ostracized. Consumers want minimal issues and problems
when interacting with any kind of software, and that goes doubly for large
companies. Having software testers involved since the start of development
would allow teams a more seamless development experience.

One model for development that the article proposes has each stage of
development separated by a quality check gate, in which test cases are
implemented. When all defects are found and fixed, only then can the
development team move on to the next stage of the process. I think this a
very good system that could fit well within the agile sprint methodology.
Leave time at the end of the sprint, but before the sprint retrospective,
for the quality assurance team to check the code, then at the retrospective
they can sign off on the state of the project. If there are any bugs that
could not be fixed within this sprint, the testers can assign it as an issue
for the next one. 

During the Development Capstone project, this could be used to manage the
teams next semester. Have team members focus on quality assurance near the
end of the sprint, and then collect their feedback at the sprint
retrospective. Another way would be to have one or two teams act as quality
assurance throughout the whole semester. Either way it could save a bit of
headaches for everyone.

From the blog CS@Worcester Alejandro Professional Blog by amontesdeoca and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 For my last blog post for this class, I found an article online that
talks about the practice of shifting-left in software quality assurance.
This approach more or less emphasizes the importance of introducing quality
assurance to earlier phases in the development process. Testing from the
initial phase of development is supposed to prevent the amount of defects
and issues from piling up at the end of development. Having testing done
throughout the development phases can also lessen the workload for the
quality assurance team.

https://hackernoon.com/embracing-the-shift-left-approach-revolutionizing-quality-assurance-in-software-development

According to the article, the cost of testing and post-production vastly
outweighs the cost of development and planning. It posits that testing
earlier and more frequently catches bugs earlier on, and reduces the overall
cost of development. This goes very hand in hand with the agile software
development methodology we learned about last semester. The world of
software development has become much more fast paced, and the current
landscape pushes for finished products with minimal defects at
launch. 

I  have seen online the mentality that a product that ships with any
problems is often ostracized. Consumers want minimal issues and problems
when interacting with any kind of software, and that goes doubly for large
companies. Having software testers involved since the start of development
would allow teams a more seamless development experience.

One model for development that the article proposes has each stage of
development separated by a quality check gate, in which test cases are
implemented. When all defects are found and fixed, only then can the
development team move on to the next stage of the process. I think this a
very good system that could fit well within the agile sprint methodology.
Leave time at the end of the sprint, but before the sprint retrospective,
for the quality assurance team to check the code, then at the retrospective
they can sign off on the state of the project. If there are any bugs that
could not be fixed within this sprint, the testers can assign it as an issue
for the next one. 

During the Development Capstone project, this could be used to manage the
teams next semester. Have team members focus on quality assurance near the
end of the sprint, and then collect their feedback at the sprint
retrospective. Another way would be to have one or two teams act as quality
assurance throughout the whole semester. Either way it could save a bit of
headaches for everyone.

From the blog CS@Worcester Alejandro Professional Blog by amontesdeoca and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 For my last blog post for this class, I found an article online that
talks about the practice of shifting-left in software quality assurance.
This approach more or less emphasizes the importance of introducing quality
assurance to earlier phases in the development process. Testing from the
initial phase of development is supposed to prevent the amount of defects
and issues from piling up at the end of development. Having testing done
throughout the development phases can also lessen the workload for the
quality assurance team.

https://hackernoon.com/embracing-the-shift-left-approach-revolutionizing-quality-assurance-in-software-development

According to the article, the cost of testing and post-production vastly
outweighs the cost of development and planning. It posits that testing
earlier and more frequently catches bugs earlier on, and reduces the overall
cost of development. This goes very hand in hand with the agile software
development methodology we learned about last semester. The world of
software development has become much more fast paced, and the current
landscape pushes for finished products with minimal defects at
launch. 

I  have seen online the mentality that a product that ships with any
problems is often ostracized. Consumers want minimal issues and problems
when interacting with any kind of software, and that goes doubly for large
companies. Having software testers involved since the start of development
would allow teams a more seamless development experience.

One model for development that the article proposes has each stage of
development separated by a quality check gate, in which test cases are
implemented. When all defects are found and fixed, only then can the
development team move on to the next stage of the process. I think this a
very good system that could fit well within the agile sprint methodology.
Leave time at the end of the sprint, but before the sprint retrospective,
for the quality assurance team to check the code, then at the retrospective
they can sign off on the state of the project. If there are any bugs that
could not be fixed within this sprint, the testers can assign it as an issue
for the next one. 

During the Development Capstone project, this could be used to manage the
teams next semester. Have team members focus on quality assurance near the
end of the sprint, and then collect their feedback at the sprint
retrospective. Another way would be to have one or two teams act as quality
assurance throughout the whole semester. Either way it could save a bit of
headaches for everyone.

From the blog CS@Worcester Alejandro Professional Blog by amontesdeoca and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 For my last blog post for this class, I found an article online that
talks about the practice of shifting-left in software quality assurance.
This approach more or less emphasizes the importance of introducing quality
assurance to earlier phases in the development process. Testing from the
initial phase of development is supposed to prevent the amount of defects
and issues from piling up at the end of development. Having testing done
throughout the development phases can also lessen the workload for the
quality assurance team.

https://hackernoon.com/embracing-the-shift-left-approach-revolutionizing-quality-assurance-in-software-development

According to the article, the cost of testing and post-production vastly
outweighs the cost of development and planning. It posits that testing
earlier and more frequently catches bugs earlier on, and reduces the overall
cost of development. This goes very hand in hand with the agile software
development methodology we learned about last semester. The world of
software development has become much more fast paced, and the current
landscape pushes for finished products with minimal defects at
launch. 

I  have seen online the mentality that a product that ships with any
problems is often ostracized. Consumers want minimal issues and problems
when interacting with any kind of software, and that goes doubly for large
companies. Having software testers involved since the start of development
would allow teams a more seamless development experience.

One model for development that the article proposes has each stage of
development separated by a quality check gate, in which test cases are
implemented. When all defects are found and fixed, only then can the
development team move on to the next stage of the process. I think this a
very good system that could fit well within the agile sprint methodology.
Leave time at the end of the sprint, but before the sprint retrospective,
for the quality assurance team to check the code, then at the retrospective
they can sign off on the state of the project. If there are any bugs that
could not be fixed within this sprint, the testers can assign it as an issue
for the next one. 

During the Development Capstone project, this could be used to manage the
teams next semester. Have team members focus on quality assurance near the
end of the sprint, and then collect their feedback at the sprint
retrospective. Another way would be to have one or two teams act as quality
assurance throughout the whole semester. Either way it could save a bit of
headaches for everyone.

From the blog CS@Worcester Alejandro Professional Blog by amontesdeoca and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 For my last blog post for this class, I found an article online that
talks about the practice of shifting-left in software quality assurance.
This approach more or less emphasizes the importance of introducing quality
assurance to earlier phases in the development process. Testing from the
initial phase of development is supposed to prevent the amount of defects
and issues from piling up at the end of development. Having testing done
throughout the development phases can also lessen the workload for the
quality assurance team.

https://hackernoon.com/embracing-the-shift-left-approach-revolutionizing-quality-assurance-in-software-development

According to the article, the cost of testing and post-production vastly
outweighs the cost of development and planning. It posits that testing
earlier and more frequently catches bugs earlier on, and reduces the overall
cost of development. This goes very hand in hand with the agile software
development methodology we learned about last semester. The world of
software development has become much more fast paced, and the current
landscape pushes for finished products with minimal defects at
launch. 

I  have seen online the mentality that a product that ships with any
problems is often ostracized. Consumers want minimal issues and problems
when interacting with any kind of software, and that goes doubly for large
companies. Having software testers involved since the start of development
would allow teams a more seamless development experience.

One model for development that the article proposes has each stage of
development separated by a quality check gate, in which test cases are
implemented. When all defects are found and fixed, only then can the
development team move on to the next stage of the process. I think this a
very good system that could fit well within the agile sprint methodology.
Leave time at the end of the sprint, but before the sprint retrospective,
for the quality assurance team to check the code, then at the retrospective
they can sign off on the state of the project. If there are any bugs that
could not be fixed within this sprint, the testers can assign it as an issue
for the next one. 

During the Development Capstone project, this could be used to manage the
teams next semester. Have team members focus on quality assurance near the
end of the sprint, and then collect their feedback at the sprint
retrospective. Another way would be to have one or two teams act as quality
assurance throughout the whole semester. Either way it could save a bit of
headaches for everyone.

From the blog CS@Worcester Alejandro Professional Blog by amontesdeoca and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 For my last blog post for this class, I found an article online that
talks about the practice of shifting-left in software quality assurance.
This approach more or less emphasizes the importance of introducing quality
assurance to earlier phases in the development process. Testing from the
initial phase of development is supposed to prevent the amount of defects
and issues from piling up at the end of development. Having testing done
throughout the development phases can also lessen the workload for the
quality assurance team.

https://hackernoon.com/embracing-the-shift-left-approach-revolutionizing-quality-assurance-in-software-development

According to the article, the cost of testing and post-production vastly
outweighs the cost of development and planning. It posits that testing
earlier and more frequently catches bugs earlier on, and reduces the overall
cost of development. This goes very hand in hand with the agile software
development methodology we learned about last semester. The world of
software development has become much more fast paced, and the current
landscape pushes for finished products with minimal defects at
launch. 

I  have seen online the mentality that a product that ships with any
problems is often ostracized. Consumers want minimal issues and problems
when interacting with any kind of software, and that goes doubly for large
companies. Having software testers involved since the start of development
would allow teams a more seamless development experience.

One model for development that the article proposes has each stage of
development separated by a quality check gate, in which test cases are
implemented. When all defects are found and fixed, only then can the
development team move on to the next stage of the process. I think this a
very good system that could fit well within the agile sprint methodology.
Leave time at the end of the sprint, but before the sprint retrospective,
for the quality assurance team to check the code, then at the retrospective
they can sign off on the state of the project. If there are any bugs that
could not be fixed within this sprint, the testers can assign it as an issue
for the next one. 

During the Development Capstone project, this could be used to manage the
teams next semester. Have team members focus on quality assurance near the
end of the sprint, and then collect their feedback at the sprint
retrospective. Another way would be to have one or two teams act as quality
assurance throughout the whole semester. Either way it could save a bit of
headaches for everyone.

From the blog CS@Worcester Alejandro Professional Blog by amontesdeoca and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

In the realm of software development, testing plays a crucial role in ensuring the reliability, functionality, and quality of the final product. As software systems become increasingly complex, traditional testing methods may not suffice, particularly in object-oriented (OO) programming environments. This blog explores the intricacies of OO testing and its significance in software engineering practices.

Summary of Object-Oriented Testing

Object-oriented testing focuses on validating the interactions, behaviors, and integrity of objects, classes, and their relationships within an OO system. Unlike traditional testing methods that primarily test individual functions, OO testing addresses the unique challenges posed by OO programming, such as data dependencies, inheritance, polymorphism, and dynamic binding.

The blog outlines various techniques used in OO testing, including:

• Fault-based testing: Identifying faults in the design or code and creating test cases to uncover errors.
• Class testing based on method testing: Testing each method of a class to ensure its functionality.
• Random testing: Developing random test sequences to mimic real-world scenarios.
• Partition testing: Categorizing inputs and outputs to test them thoroughly.
• Scenario-based testing: Stimulating user actions to test interaction patterns.

Moreover, the blog highlights the purposes of OO testing, such as validating object interactions, identifying design errors, assessing code reusability, handling exceptions, and maintaining system uniformity.

Purpose of Object Oriented Testing

1. Object Interaction Validation: Ensure that objects interact appropriately with each other in various situations.
2. Determining Design Errors: Identify limitations and faults in the object-oriented design, focusing on inheritance, polymorphism, encapsulation, and other OOP concepts.
3. Finding Integration Problems: Evaluate an object’s ability to integrate and communicate within larger components or subsystems, locating issues such as improper method calls or data exchange problems.
4. Assessment of Reusable Code: Evaluate the reusability of object-oriented code, ensuring that reusable parts perform as intended in different scenarios, leveraging features like inheritance and composition.
5. Verification of Handling Exceptions: Confirm that objects respond correctly to error circumstances and exceptions, ensuring the software is resilient and durable.
6. Verification of Uniformity: Maintain consistency within and between objects and the overall object-oriented system, enhancing maintainability and readability by following naming standards, coding styles, and design patterns.

Personal Reflection

While traditional software testing emphasizes system-level functionality and performance, object-oriented testing focuses on validating interactions and behaviors within OO systems. Both resources underscored the importance of rigorous testing in software engineering, albeit with different approaches.

In my future practice, I intend to incorporate elements from both traditional and object-oriented testing methodologies. By applying fault-based testing, random testing, and scenario-based testing techniques from OO testing, I aim to identify and rectify potential errors early in the development process. Additionally, I will continue to emphasize comprehensive system testing to ensure software meets user requirements and quality standards.

Understanding both traditional and object-oriented testing methodologies equips me to contribute effectively to the creation of high-quality software solutions. By integrating the insights gained from both resources, I am confident in my ability to enhance software testing practices and deliver reliable software products in today’s dynamic software development landscape.

Source: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/object-oriented-testing-in-software-testing/

From the blog CS@Worcester – CS: Start to Finish by mrjfatal and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.