Where's the Next one ?

No question any more. For a while.

We will concentrate our efforts on a different kind of learning exercises and I will try to cover them here also. The conclusion post will be here also after I have spoken to each of them individually.

The most interesting question came from one of the testers and needs to be discussed.

"What good is discussing about theories we cannot use in practise?"

Meaning, that most of our question and discussions have been on abstract level and are therefore not easily applicable in practise. And as we are involved with embedded software, there are some testing techniques we cannot use and so on. This needs further discussion.

End of Round Eight

Why?

To explain your previous decisions.

My view.

Every once-in-a-while you have to explain something you did a while back. It might be a test plan you did or error you set as solved. How easy that would be to explain your actions from 2 weeks ago? 2 months ago? And if new information has emerged about the situation, what then? It is rather difficult to accept that your decision was wrong or inaccurate.

The explanation or reasoning must not look like babbling or looking-for-excuses, it must show the facts you were using and thought-process around that. And preferably a note for the future how to avoid problems from now on.



The following are the answeres I received:

Tester 1:
a) Testing has inference, which consists comparison of new to old results. - For example, when testing a bug fix. We are also verifying whether and how the behavior has changed compared to the previous results.

b) Intuition is a good beginning, but a inadequate conclusion. - Although it is grammatically incorrect, it means that when you have an intuition of something then it is a good start for doing it, because then you know where to start. But it is not enough for conclusion.

c) Without knowledge testing is an ignorance-based process. - You don't know how to test something if you have no knowledge of testing and the product.

d) You're not who's fool, if someone says you're a fool. - It's like that thing with shovel and a hole.

Tester 2:
a) Testing using inference, is the comparison of expectations to the results.
Reliable conclusions are based on accurate test results & comparison of your own expectations to the results.

b) Intuition is a fertile beginning for a good conclusion.
Sometimes the answers are not quite there. You need some intuition to get to the right track.

c) Releasing without testing is for ignorance-based organizations.
Being too self-confident can blow up in your face. The bigger they are, the higher they fall!

d) You're not a fool, if you think you're a fool. Socrates: "The more you know, the more you know you dont know". Knowing about not knowing something is more valuable than not knowing that you dont know something.

Tester 3:
a) If I look at my sentence now - then if I remove word "inference", then the sentence makes sense.
b) "Natural beginning -> advising definite conclusion" - if the starting presumptions are good enough, then the results are more accurate.
c) Beer plus testing - it can`t give objective results, so it can`t be real testing - so it is something else. For example testers holiday.
d) Admitting that something is wrong is the first step for solution. Even Murdock from the A-Team admitted that he was crazy.

Tester 4:
a) Testing and inference, essential for comparison of estimated to actual results. -
I picked and for the first cap because i tried to show that both, inference and testing are parts of the process. Testing as an active process and inference as a result. Both must be done to compare estimated and actual results which were my easy two picks for this sentence.

b) Intuition is a path beginning, report a test conclusion. -
Picked path for the first cap because there are numerous times when you intuition tells you what to test. Report and test were used on other caps because report follows and concludes every test session.

c) Unfocusing on testing is causing ignorance-based risks. -
The word combination ignorance-based do go hand in hand in many cases. The other caps were filled to make this sentence seem to make some sence.

d) You're a double fool, if dumbass thinks you're a fool. -
There is always a need for a bit of humour and populism. The sentence included words that are rather easy to use for generating something that others may like. Tested the possibility for populism in our small group, as voting showed, i failed.

Tester 5:
a) Testing is inference, it is comparison of expected to actual results.
You have to inference logically what could happen if you do something and then compare the results to what you expected.

b) Intuition is a good beginning, logic a good conclusion.
It is always good to follow your intuition, but you can not base your
conclusions on it. You need facts/proofs for that and logic is a good way to get them.

c) Without specifications testing is like ignorance-based wandering.
Good spec is a base for testing. I do not only mean by spec the requirements but
also specs how to test and what to test. If you do not have those its is just wandering.

d) You're considered a fool, if you think you're a fool.
If you think yourself as a fool, you will act accordingly subconsciously. Thus making
yourself seen as a fool.

Tester 6:
a) Testing results inference, obtained by comparison of reference to actual results.
- It’s clever to compare different situations and results to find commonality and differences. It’s much easier to operate in known environment.
b) Intuition is a simple beginning, resulting a complicated conclusion.
– Intuition is a part of all decisions.
c) Necessity of testing is avoiding ignorance-based errors.
– You shouldn’t make mistakes because you are just lazy or didn’t check twice.
d) You're not that fool, if you think you're a fool.
– It’s important to acknowledge your soft spots.

Tester 7:
a) Testing logical inference, is practical comparison of conclusions to actual results.
As inferences can be verified only by verifying actual results.

b) Intuition is a correct beginning, after a wrong conclusion.
As you can act correctly by intuition even if you don't have enough information to make correct conclusions.

c) Black box testing is not ignorance-based testing.
Testing without knowing inner structure of test object don't mean that you can test it without having enough information about it's expected behavior.

d) You're not a fool, if you think you're a fool.
Only person who accepts his fallibility, can reach to correct conclusions about himself.

Tester 8:
Testing for inference, aim is comparison of reference to actual results - One main aim in testing is to get an overview of tested product and it is achieved by comparing its functioning and behavior with a reference, manual or even own logic.

Intuition is a testing-process beginning, error-report a successful conclusion - Every testing-process should start with idea or aim and should end with conclusion (and with error-reports when bugs are found).

Despite theories, testing is totally ignorance-based activity - Testing theories may be followed and great ideas may be used, but tester himself with his activities will determinate the efficiency of his work.

You're testing as fool, if work-results states you're a fool - Different testing approaches should be used with different products and systems. Also there are not a complex system without a flaw or even minor error. Tester work-results are reflecting his ability to use his knowledge in testing-process.

Eighth Question

Why did You choose the words you did for the last week question ?
Explain your reasoning.

End of Round Seven

Why?

Creativity & English grammar

My view?

Well.
English grammar first. The sentences must make sense and not only in general, but also be grammatically correct. Which is harder than it looks for non-native speakers.
That is easy to understand and learn.

Creativity about making different statements about testing is more challenging. The pre-made sentences gave rough guidelines, but noting too specific.
The originals are:

· Testing requires inference, not just comparison of output to expected results.
· Intuition is a fine beginning, but a lousy conclusion.
· Black box testing is not ignorance-based testing.
· You're harder to fool, if you know you're a fool.

Explaining the deeper meaning of these will be a left as homework :p

The following are the answeres i received:

Tester 1:
a) Testing has inference,which consists comparison of new to old results.
b) Intuition is a good beginning, but a inadequate conclusion.
c) Without knowledge testing is an ignorance-based process.
d) You're not who's fool, if someone says you're a fool.

Tester 2:
a) Testing and inference, essential for comparison of estimated to actual results.
b) Intuition is a path beginning, report a test conclusion.
c) Unfocusing on testing is causing ignorance-based risks.
d) You're a double fool, if dumbass thinks you're a fool.

Tester 3:
a) Testing logical inference, is practical comparison of conclusions to actual results.
b) Intuition is a correct beginning, after a wrong conclusion.
c) Black box testing is not ignorance-based testing.
d) You're not a fool, if you think you're a fool.

Tester 4:
a) Testing any inference, is simply comparison of theory to actual results.
b) Intuition is a natural beginning, advising a definite conclusion.
c) Beer plus testing is abstractly ignorance-based fun.
d) You're not a fool, if you think you're a fool.

Tester 5:
a) Testing results inference, obtained by comparison of reference to actual results.
b) Intuition is a simple beginning, resulting a complicated conclusion.
c) Necessity of testing is avoiding ignorance-based errors.
d) You're not that fool, if you think you're a fool.

Tester 6:
a) Testing for inference, aim is comparison of reference to actual results.
b) Intuition is a testing-process beginning, error-report a successful conclusion.
c) Despite theories, testing is totally ignorance-based activity.
d) You're testing as fool, if work-results states you're a fool.

Tester 7:
a) Testing is inference, it is comparison of expected to actual results.
b) Intuition is a good beginning, logic a good conclusion.
c) Without specifications testing is like ignorance-based wandering.
d) You're considered a fool, if you think you're a fool.

Tester 8:
a) Testing using inference, is the comparison of expectations to the results.
b) Intuition is a fertile beginning for a good conclusion.
c) Releasing without testing is for ignorance-based organizations.
d) You're not a fool, if you think you're a fool.

Seventh Question

Complete the sentences, one word for each underlining.

a) Testing ____ inference, ____ ____ comparison of ____ to ____ results.

b) Intuition is a ____ beginning, ____ a ____ conclusion.

c) ____ ____ testing is ___ ignorance-based _____.

d) You're ____ ____ fool, if ____ ____ you're a fool.

End of Round Six

Why?

To make tester think before attempting to solve problems

My view.

Logical proof can be given from two points – first is that you can prove that the statement is true. The other is that you can prove that it is false. In this case it is quite problematic to prove logically that the sun rises, due to the fact that rising sun is optical illusion as the earth rotates around its axis. But which is more important – empirical knowledge that the sun has been rising as long as mankind remembers or that some scientist claim that earth is spinning and rotating the sun?

Logical proof is based on simple rules – if the precondition is false then even logically true conclusion is also false. Plus few other rules.

I would suggest to use the other solution and show that the sun does not rise.


The following are the answers I received:

Tester 1:
It is clearly a matter of fact and it seems logical that the earth’s
rotation on its axis as it goes around the sun causes the effect of the
sun rising each morning. But will it also continue rising tomorrow? Our
belief is that the sun will rise tomorrow because it always has done in
the past. But the future cannot be deduced by the past, so it is logically
possible that the sun will not rise tomorrow. We have no rational basis
for believing that the sun will rise tomorrow also.

Tester 2:
Rising Sun is only an optical illusion.
Actually Earth is turning so, that observer is starting to see Sun appearing after it was hidden by Earth.
So this effect can't be logically proofed. But it can be described and repeatedly verified by observers.

Tester 3:
The proof that sun rises in the morning is based on the fact that sun has been observed to raise in a very large number of times. Also, the history has not registered any occasions where the sun did not raise in the morning. The third component in that logical proof might be that the rotation of the earth is always a constant. That tells us the sun should rise on an expected time, which we usually define as the morning. Altho this is a logical proof to the question, it does not prove the fact that sun will always keep rising(in the mornings).

Tester 4:
Tester has to be precise and accurate. He can't give logical proofs or sweet talk to fuzzy questions or some facts that are false.
It is known that Earth is spinning around the Sun and Sun can be seen when earth surface is towards it. It is also known that Sun can be seen at day and cannot at night. Also in the morning Sun can be first seen at east and last beams can be seen in the evening from the west (it is caused by the Earth rotation).
Therefore there isn't accurate answer to this foggy question because the Sun is not rising from anywhere in the mornings, Earth movement is causing the sunrise effect.

Tester 5:
by definition: morning is the period of time between dawn and noon.
Empirical knowledge gathered by our ancestors during the last 200,000 years, states that sun rises on planet earth.
Therefore: Sun rises in the mornings on planet earth.

Tester 6:
Sun doesn’t rise at all. The Sun is stationary. Earth revolves around the Sun and rotates around itself. Rotation of Earth around itself causes days and nights. Morning is just the name we've given to the time when Earth spinning makes the Sun appear at the beginning of the day.

Tester 7:
As the Sun is so enormously huge, then:
SUN + RISING = SUN SUN + FALLING = SUN
SUN + MORNING = SUN
SUN + EVENING = SUN

So:
RISING = FALLING
MORNING = EVENING

And also:
MORNING = RISING
EVENING = FALLING

As Earth is so tiny, then:
EARTH < SUN

We can add the same argument to both sides:
EARTH + MORNING < SUN + MORNING
EARTH + MORNING < SUN + RISING

So it shows that there are less mornings on Earth than there are Sun risings, meaning that on some morning the Sun won`t rise...


Tester 8:
First of all we we can not define the sunrise for the planet as a whole. The sun is always present for half the Earth,
so the sunrise can be only defined for a small area on Earth.
All planets in solar system spin around their center. One turn that earth makes, is considered one day. Morning
is defined by sunrise (when current location on earth turns toward the sun). So until the earth keeps spinning
there is sunrise. Whether we call this moment a morning or evening or with some other word is question on agreement.

Sixth Question

Give a logical proof that the Sun rises in the mornings on planet Earth.

End of Round Five

Why?

To make testers ask questions.

My view:

The question was deliberately formed so confusing. Without real question or assignment. So that you would do what you would normally do when given confusing task.
After questioning the missing question that part was revealed – “Which are not true?”
The question itself is a bit weird as those four sentences are not logically true by themselves. More questions should have been asked J

Evil? Yes.

So the missing starts of those sentences are:
Exploration testing is A)
Test Condition is B).
Integration testing is best described as C)
Exploratory testing is D)

And so – which are note true?

Wait for it.



All of them are not true.



The following are the answers :
The first 3 testers came asking what was missing. But just one time.

Tester 1:
These four given points can be formed into two groups: A and C versus B and D.
1) A and C have a dot at the end of the sentence, which B and D do not have.
2) B and D are based mainly on guessing, systematic behavior is minimized.

Tester 2:
All of the answers are incorrect answers from ISTQB Foundation level mock exam.
Depending on the question however one of them might be true. Not knowing the question it is hard to know the correct answer.

Tester 3:
All tasks are part of testing (gathering information about product, possible configurations and weak-spots; setting system to start condition and verifying that this condition is the correct one).

a) A systematic approach to identifying specific equivalent classes of input - it is a task what is part of testing and done firstly after obtaining testing task - true
b) The steps to be taken to get the system to a given point - it is a task what is part of testing and what is done right before testing - true
c) Testing to verify that the test environment can be integrated with the product - it is a task what is part of testing and what is done right before testing - true
d) The process of anticipating or guessing where defects might occur - it is a task what is part of testing and done firstly after obtaining testing task – true

Tester 4:
If I had to choose one of those definitions, it would have to be the one, where the essence of exploratory testing shines through the brightest:
d) The process of anticipating or guessing where defects might occur

Tester 5:
At first there is no instructions what to do with given list.
As tester I can assume that this is a list of test technique descriptions for
a)Equivalence Partitioning
b)State Transitions
c)Integration Testing
d)Bug Hunting.

Tester 6:
All these steps are related with test case designing.
D - Select specific test cases draw on error guessing
A - Identify input values
B - Make test sequences
C - Be confirmed that test cases covers the testing area

Tester 7:
This weeks question requires the question itself. Question could be: Which of the following describes exploratory testing?

Tester 8:
Specifications are needed to perform these actions and use these methods for testing.

Fifth Question

a) A systematic approach to identifying specific equivalent classes of input.
b) The steps to be taken to get the system to a given point
c) Testing to verify that the test environment can be integrated with the product.
d) The process of anticipating or guessing where defects might occur.

End of Round Four

Why?
Two main points: creativity and assessment of situation.

My view
In that situation you are left with two options:
1) Tell the joke
2) Get out of telling it
Firstly, it is very hard to make a neutral joke in general. In the current situation You’d have to consider that can be joked about and whatnot. You ‘d have to consider what would happen if the CEO or someone at his side would be offended by the joke. Nor should it be something that the CEO does not understand – making him look bad/stupid. That does not leave much room for topics on what to joke about. Most probable should be something that everyone dislikes – computer problems or state bureaucracy for example. Or if you know anything about the CEO you can use that info to find a common “enemy” – violin players. Etc.

Secondly, getting out of it seems best way not to offend the CEO, but in the same time You should consider how it makes You (and Your company) look. You should not appear dim-witted or shy. Probably the best way to get out of it is by pointing the heat to someone else stating that he/she is the funniest guy here. That is easy for you but not so good for the company if the guy does not live up to your statement.

So there are no easy options. Be creative. And remember the CEO and others are just people too.

The following are the answers :

Tester 1:
“Sorry I'm a little busy at the moment, I just found a huge bug in the product you are using. Maybe a little bit later?“

Tester 2:
“In Estonia to make a joke, you need a joke tooth.
After verification I am sorry to admit that joke tooth is lost.”

Tester 3:
(When after introduction it can be recognized that CEO knows something about his company products and have a sense of humour)
”I have been using B&O DVD2 as an external source for two days now and it hasn't crash once!”

Tester 4:
“How many hardware engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
- None. We'll fix it in software."

Tester 5:
“Question: How many software testers does it take to change a light bulb?
Answer: None. Software testers just noticed that the room was dark. Testers don't fix the problems, they just find them.”


Tester 6:
Choosing a joke for that kind of a conversation really depends on how well the conversation has evolved and how much i've noticed what my opponent actually likes. Without getting to know him well enough it is always easier to go with classic and rather simple jokes to be sure he understands it properly.
So here is what i'd tell him:

”Customer: Gee, if these machines are sold way under cost like you state they are, how do you make a living?"
Salesman: Simple.... we make our money fixing them."

Tester 7:
"Q: Homeless guy finds a computer and switches it on. What is the first thing he would check?
A: The content of Recycle Bin."

Tester 8:
“We cleaned our office four days for your half an hour tour around our company. And you looked only half of rooms.”

Fourth Question

Situation:

The company you work for is hosting their biggest client/partner CEO. The CEO is given a tour around your company, meeting everyone. After approaching your desk and introductions, the CEO asks: “Please, tell me a joke?”

What do you say?

End of Round Three

Why This Question:
Various approaches, reasons why people see different things.

My view:
This is all about changing the way you think. The movement is an optical illusion, on the actual picture the position of the girl is changed – it is either this or that. It does not show the movement from one position to the other. Your brain substitutes that so it is easier to comprehend.

As you can make yourself see the movement both ways – you should always try the same whilst testing or thinking what to test. This forces you to look at the problem from a different angle (in case of the spinning girl it is most obvious). Additionally, this is also why you notice some thing that others do not notice.



The following are the answers :

Tester 1:
In limited period of time girls image was verified:
Girls image is changing direction of spinning but by shadow girl is spinning counter clockwise.
So there is controversy or bug in moving image.

Tester 2:
The direction can be both, clockwise and counter-clockwise, depending on how to look at the picture. It is more easy to change the directions "in your mind" without looking at the picture first. After making up your mind, it should spin the way you want it. Changing the direction "on the fly" is tougher, but still managed to do it.

Tester 3:
According to the specification (Internet) the girl should spin clockwise and counter-clockwise, depend how to look.
Actual result:
5 min testing period 70% of the time I see that the girl spinning clockwise and rest of time counter-clockwise. It was really hard to change the spinning direction.
Note:
It’s not cool to confuse the user, that he doesn’t know any more what is a correct answer and he start to doubt his healthy mind.
Because of this we suggest to change the specification and behavior, that the girl not spinning any more at all.

Tester 4:
This image shows that the assumptions we make first, might not always be the right ones. We might see the girl spinning clockwise first, but after looking it for some time we see it spinning counter-clockwise. It is always important to make sure what is exactly happening.
After finding a bug it is very important to investigate what is the reason why something happens, because it could very easily be the outcome of some wrong configuration or setup.

Tester 5:
After a little staring I came to the conclusion that the direction of the girls spin is a question of perception. You can force your brain to interpret the incoming visual data both ways, although it is not easy to do so.
We do not have enough visual information to determine the absolute direction of spin (the one that is not dependent on the side of the brain we prefer to use). For us to do so, we would need an additional light source in the room, which would add texture to the girls curves.

Tester 6:
There are not any correct answer to this question or she is spinning both ways.
This .gif file is consisting of 34 frames and firstly girl is changing stretched legs (at certain moment shes right foot is stretched out and later left) and secondly stretched leg shadow is varying (at certain moment shadow is shown when shes back is toward us and later when shes bellybutton is).

Tester 7:
Girl changes its spinning direction, so it depends when you look at the image.
From testing point of view, it means that you have to take time to observe the situation for a while before making a decision. It can be that it is some kind of optical illusion again and the girl do not spin at all :)

Tester 8:
Spinning of the girl is ultimately relative.
Depending on the point of view there are at least 4 possibilities:
1.-2. The girl spins clockwise / counterclockwise.
3.-4. The viewer circles around the girl clockwise / counterclockwise (the girl stands still).

Third Question

Which way does the girl spin?

End of Round Two

Why This Question:
Point of view, perspective, focusing.

My view:
Yes - It is a old one. And Yes – there is a text between the shapes.
And it can be seen only from further away or blurring or by focusing on the space between. Too easy? Yes.
But this is the same way we miss important information while not investigating seemingly obvious “picture”.

The point is that one should Always look at least twice. And read twice as well. And well.. have more sex.



The following are the answers :

Tester 1:
Testing is like vodka - from a distance everything might seem bright and clear, but closer look gives errors.

Tester 2:
Picture is based on the optical effect and on the peculiarity of how human brain
interprets what we see. Actually the picture is no more than black shapes with some
black lines connected to it. Depending how we focus our sight, either on the objects
themselves or space between them we can see different things. Either three dimensional shapes or text forming out of the space between them. The same can be applied on testing. We can get different results from same area of testing by focusing on it differently!

Tester 3:
1. This picture is about 1/2 of A4 paper size.
2. This picture is monochrome.
3. Consist of tridimensional shapes.
4. Most of shapes are quadrangles.
5. These shapes look like strange characters.
6. It's seems that there are 3 row of text.

Tester 4:
Sometimes close observation does not tell us much about the phenomena we are observing. How do you describe an elephant when you've only seen its trunk? To gain perspective things sometimes need to be observed from afar. In this case the picture is talking to us on many levels. On the trivial level it seems like a pile of lego blocks. But when watching it while being a little further away from the monitor, a priceless aphorism can be observed.

Tester 5:
To see the words in this picture, you must close your eyes a little bit and look through your eyelashes or increase distance from the picture until it becomes readable. So, it is important to know "what" to do and "how" to do it, to understand the picture.

We have to know also how we can do things and what we need to know for doing these things. For that, we have spec., which, mostly, tells us what and how, and our own knowledge. We also have to look at things from a different point of view, from a different angle, because there is always a possibility to do things differently and for that we need to know what we can do and how we can do it.

Tester 6:
Sometimes it's important to read between the lines, do not be distractred by strong contoures. The cut pieces say NO SEX CAUSES BAD EYES

Tester 7:
On the picture there are three depressing situations of not well played complex Tetris game.
There are a number of different shape and size boxes with two white sides and one black side toward us when picture is examined impartially. However usually people are not looking things neutrally and mind is always trying to associate or assume everything with our own knowledge, experience or hunch. It may be positive or negative - it may lead us to a correct answer, however it may also disturb finding one. Things must be examined and described neutrally from different aspects when we like to be objective, precise and accurate.
Although, answers will also give a good describe of testers sexual habits..

Tester 8:
Describing a picture or testing a test object is always in context of previous experience and additional information we have.
As I don't know nothing about meaning or other parameters in sequence of objects visible in picture, then I concentrate on describing visual form of object sequence.

Picture description

I see a sequence of objects with different shapes.
Objects are located in three rows.
All objects are composed from limited selection of shapes.
Maine shapes are rectangular and triangular shapes. Additionally there are rounded corners and sharp(opposite to rounded) corners.

There can be seen some regularity:
If there is rounded corner in object, then there is always sharp corner in opposing side of second or previous object.
Triangular shapes are also opposing each other.

2nd Question

Describe the following picture:

End of Round One

Why this question:
To talk about usability of metrics.

Idea Behind:
Theoretically all aspects of any given process cannot be measured. Complete controllability would mean that all possible states could be achieved from all others states which of course is also practically impossible.

So what and how can be measured? Measuring can be qualitative or quantitative.
Example:

The speedometer of the car is needle pointing at number 60 – so you know that the speed of the car is around 60 km/h. You do not know exactly due to the number of small factors. You check the GPS and see that it shows 59,1 km/h.

You are very hungry, typically describable as “ I could eat a horse”. You do not know how hungry you are but you know it is very hungry and typically you know you’d have to eat 3 Big Macs to be satiated.

In both cases you can take control of the situation – you can brake if you see a sharp corner coming up and you could go and eat something.

The point is, that even if you cannot quantitatively measure the process you can still take rational measures to control the process.

We cannot exactly know how much we have tested or how many bugs are in the software – but based on the knowledge what we have done and previous experience we can make reasonable decisions on what to do next.


Below are the answers i received:

Tester 1:
b. - Process is controllable if it is measurable and controllable. Measurable means that we can gather useful information from particular situation (how was it done, what happened) and controllable means that we can reproduce that situation with certain action and it was not generated accidentally.
Even with simple process we can not assure that all variables are considered and because of that we can not state that our process is completely measurable or controllable.

Tester 2:
a) … it is measurable
If there is nothing that can be measured in the process then there is no way to control it.

Tester 3:
b) ... it is measurable and controllable

For the process to be controllable you'll have to be able to control it with an input signal. You will also have to be able to measure its parameters to determine if the process has achieved the desired state.

The control & measuring processes do not have to be absolute. In fact - they cannot be. There will always be a measurement error and therefore the current state of the process can only be estimated from a series of measurings.
The required accuracy for measuring depends on the process. Tolerance for measurement error is much lower in nuclear power plants than say... consumer thermometers. However both of these processes are controllable.

Tester 4:
My choice is b).
In real world only very limited processes can be completely measurable and controllable. Measuring is not enough to achieve control over a process.

Tester 5:
A-Process is controllable in range where it's measurable. It's not necessary that process should be completely measurable. B and D are not a correct because 'controllable' cannot be in same time a precondition and a result. (Similar example: Shape is _square_ if it is _square_ and have 4 right angles.)

Tester 6:
Correct answer is B. Process must be measurable to get the info
about it and controllable to be able to change the input based from measurement info.
The correct answer can not be D because no process can be fully measurable or controllable because of faults, time constraints or lack of accuracy.

Tester 7:
Process is completely controllable if it is completely measurable and completely controllable. If the process is fully measurable and controllable, the control system can use signals to send process to a desired state from any of the proccess's states, including initial state.

First Question

Only then is a process controllable if:
a) … it is measurable
b)… it is measurable and controllable
c)… it is completely measurable
d)… it is completely measurable and completely controllable

Conclusion time!

I was pretty cruel on the testers asking them to after 1-month vacation what they remember about the questions and answers. And more importantly what they think was important for them. And did this one-by-one as I told them what had thought of their answers.

Most of them did not remember much from the first look - but after reminding of the questions they seemed to recall the ideas behind them. Which is very good. I did not expect them to remember everything but to recall it when something triggered it.

Due to the voting of the best answers (to win a case of beer) one important trend was noticed:

"The winning answer does not have to be the most correct on, but it needs to be very well expressed."

Which in my mind goes a long way. When situation is complicated and the solutions are all not-so-good and/or confusing - the most understandable version is used.

For example:
When somebody asks You
"Where are the long arm and short arm of the chronometer pointing?"
Would you know to tell the time?


On the whole everyone agreed that these questions are good exercises:
*) Reminding to look stuff from another angle
*) Getting out of daily routine
*) Making their mind work on different things than usual.


I hope this has been good experience also to those following this blog.
New questions are coming soon...


PS. Changes for new "season" no winner will be selected each time, all votes that testers answers get over the 8 questions will be counted and whoever gets most - wins.
(Secret vote, naturally).

Where is the new one ?

Sorry. Not any more. At least for a while. It is vacation time now - go and rest and dream and imagine. Will be back in August.

Conclusion coming up before that.

End of Round Eight

Why this question ?
The point was to show that same thing can be named differently – tester has to understand the essence of things and thus see beyond the words and grasp the idea behind them.

My view:
In essence they are all the same.
“Ad Hoc” is the first that emerged in late 80s, then “Rapid” and “Exploratory” and then “Agile”. With the “Agile” being a derived from the agile development terminology that came with scrum and other rapid development models. Different testing gurus (or companies selling training) have been using a bit different words to make their idea stand out.

Actually I do not care what term is used for the testing as long as the basics are still the same:
· Explorative mindset
· Session-based
· Learning during testing
· All error related tasks (reporting, reproducing, regression testing, etc.)
· All kinds of different testing techniques can be used


Before the discussion the answer nr.10 was voted the best.

The following are all the answers I received :
(Spelling not corrected. )

Tester 1:
Rapid Testing- It is based on exploratory testing and is used when time limit is low. Finds the biggest bugs in the shortest time.

Tester 2:
Exploratory Testing is a testing method that is tester-specific in the sense that it relies heavily on the testers to find new approaches to testing and their ability to interpret the results obtained by those new approaches. It emphasizes the personal engagement of the tester to find out how software 'works' and to use that knowledge to pinpoint possible faults & bottlenecks in the software. In this sense Exploratory Testing is more like a mindset rather than a clearly defined testing method.

Tester 5:
Ad Hoc Testing:
Testing person have free hands to explore, twist, torture device as he likes and no documentation doesn't have to be written about it (only error reports). This method relies on tester improvisation and is most effective on finding quickly big bugs.

Tester 9:
Rapid testing - testing method to test the software with very limited resources (time, manpower, ...)
using the tester skills and heuristic methods.

Tester 10:
Ad Hoc Testing - tester most preferred testing method! It is part of exploratory testing but it is the least formal among others - free choice of path, performed with improvisation, no documentation, no reports - just pure fun of creative and productive testing!

Tester 11:
Agile testing - Testing the product from an end customers viewpoint rather than testers viewpoint. Testing the product as soon as possible, when the newest code becomes available.

Tester 13:
Exploratory testing is any testing to the extent that the tester actively
controls the design of the tests as those tests are performed and uses
information gained while testing to design new and better tests.
The heart of exploratory testing can be stated simply: "The outcome of
this test influences the design of the next test.

8'th Question

Define one of the following terms:
a) Rapid Testing
b) Exploratory Testing
c) Agile Testing
d) Ad Hoc Testing

End of Round Seven

Why this question ?
To test the attention and math-thinking ability.

My view:
This question was mainly stressing two points:
First, the puzzles themselves are not that common and need a bit of thinking to get them straight. Alas, the one with resistors being a bit more complex. Nevertheless, the Internet has solutions for both of them.

Secondly, the question was not to solve them. The question stated that you can choose what do to – either keep on walking to cross the street (and not get hit by the bus or car) or to go to bar or do whatever comes to you mind. So it was a trick question showing how easy it is to make the reader draw conclusions rather than read what is actually written. Testers have to pay attention to every detail.

Before the discussion the answer nr.13 was voted the best.

The following are all the answers I received :
(Spelling not corrected. )

Tester 1:
Figures out how to count ones:
0-99 -> 20
0-999 -> 10*20+100=300
0-9999 -> 10*300+1000=4000
0-99999 -> 10*4000+10000=50000

100000 -> 199999 -> 100000+50000
0-199999 -> 150000+50000=200000
0-200000 -> 200000

200000 is a possible solution, but investigating also a little bit smaller numbers:
So Answer is 199981
While a question is to difficult, then it’s a good idea to simplify the question and try to find approximate answer. I will take only resistors that impact more summary resistance between the two marked notes and Approximate resistance is: R=1/(1/3+1/3)=1,5 ohm

Tester 2:
I would finish crossing the street as I am not yet that eccentric to start pondering on the puzzles while blocking the traffic. After a brief consideration of the puzzles I would probably move on as I believe its sometimes important to recognize things as they are. In this case while evaluating the possible solutions for these puzzles I understood that they are merely distractions and trying to solve them would take a better part of an otherwise beautiful day.
Oh yeah, the answers are (8-Pi) / 2Pi and infinity

Tester 6:
First I am crossing the street.
The largest n is 1.
Can calculate equivalent resistance only if precision is set.

Tester 9:
Resistance is 3 ohms
the function is f(111) = 111

Tester 10:
1. Resistance between two marked nodes is non-existing because all resistors have to be considered (infinite grid) and parallel resistors (even when many resistors are joint together) are minimizing resistance.
2. There is not any larger f(n)=n than f(1)=1 because number n is gaining faster than number 1 what is used in it.

Tester 11:
resistor puzzle: 2/pi

Testser 13:
I would take out my phone, turn on the camera function, take a picture of the puzzles and keep my attention on crossing the street, not solving the puzzles, because otherwise there is a good chance of getting hit by a car.

As a tester, I would say that besides the feature, function etc. that you have to test, you always have to pay your attention to everything else too. Loosing attention to the signs and getting hit by a car while crossing the street could mean the same thing as missing a bug somewhere near the area that you are testing.

Seventh Question

You are walking down the street and looking for a puzzle to solve. After some time while crossing a street you see TWO very interesting signs:



You can choose what to do.

End of Round Six

Why this question ?

To learn something new ( or old) and understand the "gut feeling".

My view:
Yes, he is famous for his clocks, but those are not his greatest achievement. Not even his grasshopper escapement, the bimetallic strip or the caged roller bearing.

His will to try and make something that was thought impossible, even when told otherwise, was his greatest achievement. Not only the invention itself, but also the stubbornness to continue improving his clock when the government dismissed the preciseness as “luck”.

The H4 was tested thoroughly and still said that it does not work and needs more testing. The moral there is that some things just work - luckily - and excessive testing is waste of time. We as testers need to feel when more testing is needed or when that would be a waste of resources.


Before the discussion the answer nr. 2 was voted the best.

The following are all the answers I received :
(Spelling not corrected. )

Tester 1:
H1- Because it was first one and idea is the most important. All others was only upgrades.

Tester 2:
John Harrisons greatest achievement to my mind was the H4. It was the most accurate chronometer of his time. It was in fact so accurate that it required extensive testing just to verify how accurate it was. As the testers were the brightest minds of those days - they were members of a science society called Astronomer Royal I can only conclude that because even they were struggling to understand just how accurate the H4 was - It had to be very precisely built --> error free and therefore the greatest achievement of John Harrison.

Tester 5:
John Harrison greatest achievment was solving the problem of accurately establishing the East-West position. Idea that clock can be accurate enough to measure longitude at the sea was insain. But he did it, he build a series of clocks which were revolutionary at that time. All clocks (H1, H2, H3, H4, H5) that he build were accurate enough that they could be used. But i have to choose and and as being tester i choose H4 which was more tested than other clocks.

Tester 6:
Answer is e) or H5. It's last version of his work and includes all knowledge he acquired when developing H1, H2, H3 and H4.

Tester 9:
e) Although the H1 was the first ever good chronometer and H2-H5
were even better his greatest inventions were bimetallic strip and caged
roller bearings. Two inventions which are widely used everyday without any
big changes from 18 century

Tester 10:
H4
It was the first compact, reliable, unaffected by high frequency motion or drastic change of temperature, extremely accurate and 100% mechanically working timekeeper. It is probably one of the most important and benchmarked timekeeper ever made.

Tester 11:
Altho greating H1 he was the pioneer of the technology, his greatest achievement was H4 simply because it had the most accurate technology and was tested way more than all the previous versions.

Tester 13:

In my opinion, the greatest achievement of John Harrison would be the H4. It was most improved, developed and tested watch, because it was the last one of them. H4 was also the one that lasted longer, because out of the hundreds of new clocks created after the H4 during 210 years, there was none that improved accuracy of H4.

Sixth Question

What was the greatest achievement of John Harrison and why?
a) H1
b) H2
c) H3
d) H4
e) Something else...

End of Round Five

Why this question ?
Just something to wander about.

My view:
Even if all combinations can be calculated, which takes more computing power than the supercomputers have used, it is still problematic to decide which one to use. Humans follow their “gut feeling” or intuition and therefore can skip the hard part of computing. It is the power of pattern recognition and creativity and illogic.
And sometimes simply a mistake by making a move that is not any good. But that just might throw the computer off his calculated path, as the move creates a lot of other possible paths to win and it just might make a wrong choice there and follow the wrong way.
So the point is that tester needs to be creative and follow his/her intuition, but also needs to know the technology very well.


Before the discussion the answer nr. 11 was voted the best.

The following are all the answers I received :
(Spelling not corrected. )

Tester 1:
Because computer cannot solve problems creatively, it’s only have behavior instructions.

Tester 2:
Expert players can win chess games against supercomputers with creative approaches to standard problems and using their advanced pattern recognition skills.

Chess supercomputers achieve their results by combining raw computing power with game-board evaluation algorithms. These algorithms use a database of historic chess games as an input for the game-state evaluation. Due to the extremely high number of possible permutations in an average chess match, there is an infinite number of possible matches and therefore the database can never be complete. When the expert player comes up with a creative game plan, that the computer cannot define using its database, it has to rely on raw computing power in order to calculate the next move. Humans are equipped with a great pattern recognition ability which renders their game-state evaluations infinitely more effective in terms of raw calculation.

Tester 5:
A machine does not have any flexibility of thinking. The main advantage for a human is a feeling for the game. Quite often, human cannot calculate everything, but he makes the right move because he feels it is the right move. A computer can only try to make the right move mathematically.

Tester 6:
Possible explanations:
1.Chess software run by supercomputers have issues.
2.Expert players have better knowledge of chess if chess software developers.
3.Expert players have better knowledge of chess if chess software testers.

Tester 9:
Computers always follow a logical pattern, while humans can act illogically on the same situation.
This means humans are able to take actions (without knowing the results) and adopt to the new situation, while machines have to calculate every step and its consequence.

Tester 10:
All possible movements and combinations should be tried or tested to be certain of supercomputer win at all the time.
However it can not be achieved because there are about 10^120 different movements in chess and it would take (if supercomputer used with billion calculations a second) 30^103 years to complete it.

Tester 11:
Supercomputers like all the computers are following the path they are told. Although they are able to predict a number of scenarios, they do it through the algorithms specific to their goals. Expert players though have the unique opportunity to use their imagination that might not take them to their goal at first sight. These unexpected behaviours that might have no logic in them, can be done only by human mind and imagination. Following the unexpected path might have unexpected results every now and then. Thats tha advantage of the human mind.

Fifth Question

Why can’t supercomputers like “Deep Blue” or “Deep Fritz” win all chess games against expert players?

End of Round Four

Why this question ?
The whole thing is pretty much stressing the point that sometimes – no matter how hard we look we cannot find a solution. The question was to make you use your imagination of what it could be and what it would signify – to ask questions about the weird things you discover during testing.

My view:
It looks like a Gomoku game with equal number of placed pieces – as white starts then the next move would be white’s. If not placed correctly into one place then black will win.
There is a missing line in top right corner.
Taken be rows it could be morse code black long signal and white short - A P U G Y C V
It could be whatever.

The point being that one should not just give up when specifications or easy answers are not handy, but to look more into the problem - analyze the situation, assume something and then test that assumption. And then Test again from different assumption and angle - to see what makes sense.

Before the discussion the answer nr. 5 was voted the best.

The following are all the answers I received :
(Spelling not corrected. )

Tester 1:
It’s a memory chip.
Miss one row and one column.
Add column on the left and row on the bottom, so that arrow place on centre
So the table coverts into binary table where rows and columns are from 0000 to 1111

White:
Bin Dec
01011000 88
01100110 102
01101001 105
01110111 119
01111000 120
01111001 121
10000110 134
10001000 136
10001001 137
10010110 150
10011000 152
10101001 169
SUM 1533
Black:
Bin Dec
01010111 87
01100111 103
01101000 104
01110101 117
01110110 118
01111010 122
10000111 135
10010111 151
10011001 153
10100110 166
10100111 167
10101000 168
SUM 1758
Black got more points and is a winner.


Tester 5:
There is a reversi gameboard with faulty upper right corner. Game situation seems to be fair tide - game is an early stadium and both players have equally 12 pieces.
Assume:
There is something about shape of pieces and gameboard and maybe this isn't game of reversi after all. There must be a forest beyond the trees.
Conclude:
Ahhaa.. black and white pieces form a shape of arrow. This picture with faulty gameboard and arrow is a form of conceptual art...
and art can't be evaluated with software testing methods!!!

Tester 6:
Displayed area have squared shape and is bordered with black frame.
Area background is covered with squares except upper right corner where two squares are merged into one rectangle.
Can't verify 13 background squares and can only partly verify 24 background squares because they are covered with circles.
Circles form a symmetrical image but this image is not centered in squared background.
Image formed by circles have arrowed shape.
There is equal amount of black an white circles.
Both black and white circles form at least one T like shape.
There are 12 white circles, 12 black circles, 194 squares and 1 rectangle if area covered with circles have squares in background.
If area covered with circles have squares in background then all circles are centered in corners of circles.
Squares side length is equal to circles diameter.

Tester 9:
The buttons make a image of a house or a arrow pointing upwards. If we rearrange the black and white buttons we can get a white house with a black roof or vice versa because the pointy part and a bottom part has both 12 buttons.

Tester 10:
From tester viewpoint this kind of picture is not telling much and question scale is to general.
We can analyze and say that there are certain amount of rectangles, circles or black lines or we can assume that this is a puzzling-picture and conclude by giving our personal opinion about possible solution but tester conclusion is more qualified with exact background knowledge and knowhow.

Fourth Question

Analyse, Assume & Conclude.

End of Round Three

Why this question ?
The idea behind the question was to make You think about different sides of the same thing. Describing him as Artist or Hacker does not change what he did but only changes how it is thought of. And by thinking differently about something gives a creates a wider range of questions about it.

And for testers - trying to answer different questions gives possibility to discover more.

My view:
Kevin Mitnick is a convicted criminal, found guilty in number of computer crimes. Before he can be labeled as artist or hacker or something else, those labels should be defined. And then it becomes basically a mentality problem – how to look at things that he has done (and allegedly done)? What to praise and what not?

But the important bit is:
He was using limited information on a given subject to locate the weak spots and then investigated those until he found a way to exploit the subject.

So he is excellent in the following skills:
· Social engineering – for acquiring information and specifications
· Information analysis – for finding the possible weak spots in spec and systems
· Investigating the weak spots – creating the different scenarios in which those weak spots
could be used for something they were not intended for.

One other thing that made him the best:
· Mindset –he wants to find the answers and he knows he can do it.


These are skills that all testers need to be excellent in.
There are other stuff too– documenting your work, following the law, working in teams, etc…


Before the discussion the answer nr. 3 was voted the best.

The following are all the answers I received :
(Spelling not corrected. )

Tester 1:
Kevin Mitnick is a tester.

Why:
Hacker is a tester who try to find bottleneck (error for testers) in the system.
Successful hacker or tester is always a hero.
Hacking and testing is an art.

Tester 2:
d) all of the above
It takes an artist to think up creative methods, it takes a hacker to know how to apply these methods and it takes a hero to have courage to discover the unknown.

Tester 3:
I guess, for Government he was a Hacker, for hackers a Hero and for
programmers an Artist. So it depends of the background of viewer.

Tester 4:
Kevin Mitnick is a hacker or a good tester because:
1. He get to know system where he's going to hack - like reading MMI
2. Hacking in - like testing
3. Use holes (bugs) in system to make pranks - like reporting bugs
4. He currently works as a computer consultant and solving these problems - like testing again and see if the error is removed or not.

Tester 5:
Kevin Mitnick have impressive tester qualities:
- different approch to problems
- good knowlege of the system (is essential to find flaws)

But still he is a hacker because he used his skills without permissions.

Tester 6:
Most correct definition for Kevin Mitnick is hacker.
Artist and hero are subjective evaluations and are not related to Kevin Mitnick's actual activities.
Kevin Mitnick is most known by gaining access to closed computer networks and systems. He used mostly social engineering methods for this.
So he is(was) hacker by negative meaning of the word.

Tester 7:
He's a genius who thinks in binary.

Tester 8:
When we look at the big picture, Kevin Mitnick was definitely an innovator and a genius for hacking into several "secured" networks. For sure, he helped develop a more advanced network security systems for all the websites and databases out there. But, we must keep in mind the "spec" - the property law, which we are forced to follow. Keeping that in mind we are safe to say that Kevin Mitnick WAS a criminal, and a bad one to be precise, because he got caught. Every house has security holes.. But that does not mean you can just break in, so my answe to this question is - Kevin Mitnick was a criminal.

Tester 9:
e) He can be any of the given choices depending on the viewer. For programmers he can be
Artist for his programming skills. For government he is hacker and for other "hackers" he is hero.
From testing point of view he can be a regular tester, one who is responsible for security tests :)

Tester 10:
d) anyone

It all depends in what circumstances he is observed. Object background and the main purpose of a question must be defined properly.
Kevin Mitnick has a cool-looking beard (he can be artist), he got million of fans (he can be hero to someone) and he is criminal (he can be named a hacker or cracker) who was owning profit by using computer system weaknesses.

Tester 11:
K. Mitnick is an artist because:

1. Found new and interesting ways of interpreting modern technology.
2. Is one of the first to be convicted in computer related crimes. After that he has a lot of followers, which is similar to most artists who have set the tone in history.

Tester 12:
Not in time..

Third Question

Who is Kevin Mitnick?
a) Artist
b) Hacker
c) Hero
d) None of the above,

Give reasons why You think so.

End of Round Two

Why this question ?
The idea behind the question was to make You think about exploration and discoverying.
What it is? When something is discovered? How to discover new stuff? Why we discover some stuff again-and-again? Etc...

In my view :

Discovery is the result exploration. But only so when it has been analysed and properly documented.

Columbus plotted a course to the west to find a shorter route to India or China – and ended up on America. But his finding went without much hassle until a Amerigo Vespucci really understood the finding. Not to mention Vikings, Chinese, and others who have supposedly been there first and not to mention those who already live on it.

The general point is:
*) During an exploration testing do not only just report the bugs/findings correctly. Always try to analyse them.
*) Create uncommon paths for testing. They might have more findings. No point of going through of the same old things over and over.

Before the discussion the answer nr. 5 was voted the best.

The following are all the answers I received :
(Spelling not corrected. )


Tester 1:
America is not discovered jet.
Why:
Something is discovered, while there is nothing unknown anymore.
Discovering is as ‘testing all’, it’s not possible and anyone hasn’t done that.

Tester 2:
Discovery is a coherent process - this means that the discoverer has to know that he had discovered something. Bearing this in mind, it is clear that america was not discovered by vikings in the year 1000, or by Columbus in 1492, but rather by Americo Vespucci several years later as he was the first one to realize that this was a new continent.

Tester 3:
May by Christopher Columbus, Leif Ericson or someone else. Anyway it is testable only by document review.

Tester 4:
Some said that Columbus discovered America.
Some said that one businessman called Amerigo Vespucci was first man who step on the NEW WORLD ground. All we know is that great UNCLE SAM lives there now.

Many different opinions and because of that we can't be sure who actually discovered this 'great' continent. Need a correct specification before we can be sure who was the real US and A discoverer. - Spec fault.

Tester 5:
Firstly we have to define what is discovery.
Discovery is an event when you stumble on the new land and:
-you let other people know about it
-you can understand what you have found

Vikings, Irish seafarers etc didn't share their knowledge with rest of Europe.
Columbus only discovered group of islands and thought that it was India.

So hwo was first person hwo discovered some new land and realized what

America was discovered by Amerigo Vespucci - he found new land and was first person to realize that this was new contigent.

Tester 9:
Columbus discovered America for rest of the world. There might have been others who
went there before (vikings and so on), but they never reported their finding.
Report your bugs or be forgotten in history!

Tester 10:
Tester can not be fooled by ambiguous or unclear question - facts, statements and information must be handled, processed and expressed correctly!
America was discovered 3,8 billion years ago by very primitive organisms (mutants of viruses) who are believed to be the first living creatures on earth.
America continent broke off from the west of the super-continent around 135 million years ago, therefore it was "discovered" and explored by different living creatures billions of years and because of that Leif Ericson or Christopher Columbus are definitely not a correct answers to a question of discovering an America (they were the first ones to reach America from Europe by crossing Atlantic Ocean).

Tester 11:
America was discovered by the authors of Columbus' maps, which directed him to India without going around Africa. Columbus was just the first guy to follow the idea and maps.

Tester 12:
How to discover America if the test path and result analysis were wrong? First person who figured it out was the first person who discovered America.


- Some answers were not delivered on time.

Second Question

Who discovered America ( the continent) ? Give some reasons why You think so.

End of Round One

Why this question?
The meaning behind the question was to make you think about the purpose of testing and the way testers handle their problems.

For the Biologist the most typical issue is reproduction - therefore he described the situation from that point of view.
The Mathematicians take things abstractly - so their explanation would be that there is "-1" people in the house.
Or as the Physicists have to prove everything with experiments and measurements - they would explain this as a measurement error.

So I wanted to urge people to think what are the main concerns and tasks of testers?

In my opinion those are:
· Questioning the specifications (is the house really empty?)
· Investigating the situation (Repeating the experiment, does it happen all the time?)
· Analyze the results (Was the house empty? Or what was happening?)
· Report the findings as clearly as possible


Before the discussion the answer nr. 10 was voted the best.


The following are all the answers I received :
(Spelling not corrected.)

Tester 1:
Tester explanation 1:
According to specification XXX, ver.V, from date dd-mm-yyyy, page p, chapter c: ‘While one person goes in the House, then after 30 min comes two persons out.’
So it’s specification and correct behavior.

Tester explanation 2:
Wrong start condition - the House wasn’t empty
How to verify:
TEST SEQUENCE:
1. Reset start condition (clear EEPROM, reset to default)
2. Send one person in the house
EXPECTED RESULTS:
Bit later only one person leaves the House.

Tester explanation 3:
Wrong input - There was actually send two persons in the House not one
How to verify:
Use special tool to be sure that only one person goes in (for example BeoCIM stimulus).

Tester explanation 4:
Wrong output - One person leaves the House, but counted twice
How to verify:
Use log tool to count peoples who comes out of the House

Questions:
Are the persons allowed to enter the House (are they in value range)
Who come out while in the House goes one dog?
o Two dogs or
o One dog and one person
How many persons come out, while in the House goes two persons?
What happened while none person goes in the House and just wait?

Tester 2:
It is probably a synchronization error; The sampling rate of the system (house) was twice as fast as the signal (person). If the person would have entered the building more quickly, there would have been only one person coming out of the house.

Tester 3:
There is only facade with a signboard "EMPTY HOUSE" and behind it a lot of people, as usual.

Tester 4:
There is an error in this situation, report as high classification error

Tester 5:
Alright!!! I am going to report it, this is an A-category bug!

Tester 6:
Situation description is incomplete or we have fault in laws of nature.
Possible verifications:
Where one person went?
From where two persons came from?
Why is there an empty house?

Tester 7:
ERROR!
Illegal person left the building. Buggy house found!

Tester 8:
The situation observer clearly missed one person who sneaked in from a hidden entrance.
Check if there's a tunnel leading to the house for example. If there exists one, then we try to recreate the situation: One person goes in, another one sneaks in from the hidden entrance. When observers don't see the 2nd person going in then they will believe that 1 person became 2 persons inside the house, which is clearly false.

Tester 9:
It's a bug! Not expected output for given input.

Tester 10:
All different inputs/outputs are not considered correctly (or included). There may be another door, window or hole what is missed and where people can enter/exit the building. It would be necessary to inspect the house thoroughly and repeat the experiment.

( If there is only one door and it is possible to send more people in, it would be clever to send two persons in and see if three/four/some other no. of persons come out. After that it would be advised to repeat experiment and send three and after that four persons in and observe how many people are leaving the building later. With this information it is possible to clarify if there are a mathematical formula of people "fissioning". )


Tester 11:
There was a hidden person in the house while it was searched and declared empty. A need for a proper search by tester to make sure it is empty and repeat the situation.

Tester 12:
1. It is black box testing case - input is one and output is two
2. It is white box testing case - man was asking her girl out
3. It is grey box testing case - bo-soft tester win box of beer and asking other to carry it his home


Tester 13:
It all started in 2004 when a child was born. His parents were famous software issues that were responsible for many famous disasters like Mariner 1, Ariane 5 (plus several other NASA issues that cost the US government a lot of money), Therac 25 and even the desynchronization of the valvetronic motors of BMW 745i. Anywhoo, his parents named him simply BUG. Young BUG always knew that he had to live up to his name, with his parents being authorities in their line of work. But BUG was a smart little fellow and he knew exactly what to do. There was a house being built in a really expensive neighbourhood. Since the beginning of the construction he had been hiding inside the house, waiting for the right moment to jump out. John, the lead designer and the current owner of the house was very proud of his work and he was sure that he would get tons of money for the house. When the buyers arrived John stepped in to make final adjustments. When he was exiting the house, with clients already waiting outside, BUG knew it was now or never. He climbed out of his hideout, walked quietly behind John and just as they exited the house he screamed "SURPRISE!". Ofcourse the customers left, and when the rumors spread then noone wanted to buy the house anymore. After some time, the house crumbled, John had no money left and had to live inside a box for the rest of his life. But BUG had made his parents proud.

First Question

Situation:
There is an empty House. One person goes in and a bit later two persons come out.

Explanations:
By Biologist: Procreation – amitosis, fission, (asexual) reproduction etc
By Mathematician: if one more person entered the building it would be empty again.

Your assignment:
How would a tester explain the situation?

What is this now ? Interrogation ?

No. This is my way of trying to help people to think a bit more.

What's the point ?
So the main goal is to widen the testers mind with extraordinary questions. And the winner gets a prize.

Is there on right answer ?
No, Actually the questions themselves are not as important than the journey to find the answer.

What kind of questions ?
Questions are various, covering all kinds of topics except testing.

What ? No testing questions ?
Yep. The point behind the question is closely related to testing.

So how is the prize awarded ?
In a weekly meeting the answers are discussed and the best on selected with popular vote.

And the idea behind question ?
I will explain my idea behind the questions after the discussion if it has not emerged already.

Why testers?
It could be anybody, but as I am a Test Manager in company my first priority is to help them
become better and better.

What kind of testing ?
I always refer to software testing when using the word "testing".

What kind of software do you test ?
We are mainly testing embedded software for different Audio-Video products.