qrcode.net example c# Part IV: About the Future in Visual C#.NET

Draw QR Code in Visual C#.NET Part IV: About the Future

Part IV: About the Future
QR Code 2d Barcode Generation In C#.NET
Using Barcode encoder for Visual Studio .NET Control to generate, create Denso QR Bar Code image in .NET framework applications.
www.OnBarcode.com
Scan QR Code In Visual C#.NET
Using Barcode decoder for .NET Control to read, scan read, scan image in VS .NET applications.
www.OnBarcode.com
List
Bar Code Generator In C#
Using Barcode maker for VS .NET Control to generate, create barcode image in Visual Studio .NET applications.
www.OnBarcode.com
Reading Bar Code In C#.NET
Using Barcode decoder for .NET Control to read, scan read, scan image in .NET framework applications.
www.OnBarcode.com
15: Solving Tomorrow's Problems Today 16: Building the Future
QR Code JIS X 0510 Generation In .NET Framework
Using Barcode generation for ASP.NET Control to generate, create QR image in ASP.NET applications.
www.OnBarcode.com
Making QR Code In .NET Framework
Using Barcode encoder for Visual Studio .NET Control to generate, create QR Code ISO/IEC18004 image in .NET framework applications.
www.OnBarcode.com
15: Solving Tomorrow's Problems Today
Drawing Denso QR Bar Code In VB.NET
Using Barcode maker for Visual Studio .NET Control to generate, create QR image in VS .NET applications.
www.OnBarcode.com
Create Data Matrix In C#.NET
Using Barcode drawer for .NET Control to generate, create Data Matrix ECC200 image in .NET framework applications.
www.OnBarcode.com
Alan Page
Code 128 Code Set C Maker In Visual C#
Using Barcode encoder for .NET Control to generate, create Code128 image in VS .NET applications.
www.OnBarcode.com
Code 39 Extended Maker In Visual C#
Using Barcode creator for Visual Studio .NET Control to generate, create Code 39 Full ASCII image in .NET framework applications.
www.OnBarcode.com
Overview
Linear Drawer In C#
Using Barcode encoder for Visual Studio .NET Control to generate, create Linear image in VS .NET applications.
www.OnBarcode.com
MSI Plessey Creation In C#.NET
Using Barcode maker for Visual Studio .NET Control to generate, create MSI Plessey image in .NET applications.
www.OnBarcode.com
Software testing is a growing field that will continue to mature for many years. Many of the innovations and new approaches in test have been reactions to the problems test teams have run into. The creation of software testing jobs occurred after programmers discovered that they couldn't find all of their own bugs. Implementation of many test automation solutions occurred after management discovered that testing would require either more testers or a more efficient method of conducting some segments of testing. It seems that there is always another obstacle to overcome in software testing. For the most part, testers wait until the problem is big enough so that a solution for the problem is imperative. For the art, craft, and science of testing to continue to advance and expand, we need to be able to anticipate some of these problems before their burden becomes overwhelming. This chapter covers some of the testing problems that Microsoft is currently facing and the direction we are taking in solving those problems.
Encoding Denso QR Bar Code In None
Using Barcode generation for Software Control to generate, create Denso QR Bar Code image in Software applications.
www.OnBarcode.com
Decoding QR Code 2d Barcode In None
Using Barcode recognizer for Software Control to read, scan read, scan image in Software applications.
www.OnBarcode.com
Automatic Failure Analysis
EAN / UCC - 13 Creation In Java
Using Barcode drawer for Java Control to generate, create GS1-128 image in Java applications.
www.OnBarcode.com
Painting UPC A In Java
Using Barcode generator for Android Control to generate, create UPC Code image in Android applications.
www.OnBarcode.com
If a tester runs 100 test cases and 98 percent of them pass, the tester might need only a few minutes to investigate the two failures and either enter the bugs into the bug tracking system or correct the errors in the test. Now, consider the case where the tester has 1,000 different tests that run across 10 different configurations and 5 different languages. That same 98 percent pass rate on an "exploded" test matrix of 50,000 test points [1] results in 1,000 failures for investigation. With an increasing number of product configurations available, it is becoming common for small teams to have a million test points, where even a tiny percentage of failures can result in enough needed investigation to cause "analysis paralysis" a situation where the test team spends as much time investigating test failures as they do testing.
Drawing Data Matrix 2d Barcode In Java
Using Barcode printer for Android Control to generate, create ECC200 image in Android applications.
www.OnBarcode.com
Bar Code Reader In Visual Basic .NET
Using Barcode recognizer for Visual Studio .NET Control to read, scan read, scan image in Visual Studio .NET applications.
www.OnBarcode.com
Overcoming Analysis Paralysis
Encoding Code-39 In Visual Studio .NET
Using Barcode printer for Reporting Service Control to generate, create Code 39 Extended image in Reporting Service applications.
www.OnBarcode.com
Scanning Barcode In None
Using Barcode reader for Software Control to read, scan read, scan image in Software applications.
www.OnBarcode.com
Just as automated testing is one solution for testing a countless number of different product configurations, automatic failure analysis (AFA) is a solution for dealing with a large number of test failures. The most effective way to avoid paralysis is to anticipate it in other words, don't wait until you have an overwhelming number of failures to investigate before considering the impact the investigation will have on the test team. It is easy for a test team to become stuck in an infinite loop between creating automation and investigating failures (or, as I have sometimes heard it said, creating failures and investigating automation). Living in this loop rarely results in well-tested software. In the best circumstances, analyzing hundreds or thousands of failures merely takes time. In other scenarios, much worse things can happen. Consider this conversation between a manager and his employee John: Manager: John, how far did you get investigating those test failures John: I investigated some of the results and identified these four bugs in the product. I haven't
had time to get to the rest, but I recognize several tests among those that have been failing because of known issues that won't be fixed until the next release. Manager: OK, I want you to get back to work on automating tests for our next new feature. two months pass Manager: John, we have a serious problem with the release. Customers are reporting serious issues. John: Yeah it turns out that the failures I didn't investigate failed in a different way than they had before and there was actually a serious issue. It's unfortunate, but I don't have time to look at every single failure, and it made sense at the time not to look further. In this example, John didn't finish the analysis for a few reasons. He skipped some of the investigation because in his mind the failures were already understood. Furthermore, even his manager thought that the best investment of John's time was to move on to creating new automated tests. If you run a test twice and it fails twice, you cannot assume that it failed the same way both times. Similarly, if you run the same test on five different configurations of the software and it fails all five times, you don't know that the configurations all failed in the same way unless you investigate all five failures. Performing this analysis manually is tedious, error prone, and keeps testers from doing what they need to be doing testing software! Successful AFA requires several critical components. Figure 15-1 shows a basic architecture of an AFA implementation.
Copyright © OnBarcode.com . All rights reserved.