Talk:Test plan

Untitled

I've expanded it a bit, specifically in the realm of software testing. I have not extensively wikified the IEEE template. I have simply taken an existing open page from the University of Toronto at Scarborough and made a few changes to make it better for wiki display and updating some information. Hardware engineering may want to add their own section. I'm not sure what to add for economics.--Walter Görlitz 15:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't "wikify" the testing section when the links are irrelevant to testing. A software release is not part of release criteria. Risk in general is not part of risk management. I'm going to de-wikify what has been incorrectly wikified. --Walter Görlitz 06:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should be combined with the page named test strategies. I made some changes to "test strategies" since it appear as a stub. Test plan and test strategies are the same thing. Liheng300 (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in this page

There are several errors on this page reference the IEEE 829-1998. Though the listed items are good ideas, they are NOT part of the IEEE standard. If the standard is quoted, it should be adhered to. Perhaps a supplemental listing of "other good topics"?

From IEEE 829-1998:

a) Test plan identifier;
b) Introduction;
c) Test items;
d) Features to be tested;
e) Features not to be tested;
f) Approach;
g) Item pass/fail criteria;
h) Suspension criteria and resumption requirements;
i) Test deliverables;
j) Testing tasks;
k) Environmental needs;
l) Responsibilities;
m) Staffing and training needs;
n) Schedule;
o) Risks and contingencies;
p) Approvals.

Also notice that item "Ramaining Test Task" should be "Testing Tasks"; which has a different meaning.

That's because when it was added, it was the original format, but it has been modified by others and no longer is identical to the pure IEEE format. --Walter Görlitz 19:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With those changes the article cannot be a trusted source of information. Can you make fixes to return it to original state? Vitc 23:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the list based on IEEE 829-1998 (was just an ordering issue when I looked at it). In addition, I added the IEEE 829-1998 document as a reference and wikilink to the wikipedia article on IEEE 829. Ismarc (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weird unclear sentence

The sentences: "Cem Kaner, co-author of Testing Computer Software (ISBN 0471358460), has suggested that test plans are written for two very different purposes. Sometimes the test plan is a product; sometimes it's a tool. It's too easy, but also too expensive, to confuse these goals." are totally unencyclopedic, unclear, and the presence of an ISBN link (buy this book), makes it fishy.

Either that distinction is meaningful (and should be explained clearly), or it is not (and it should be removed).

They're very encyclopedic. The idea is that test plans are often written without any understand of why they should be written or how they should be used. Your comments should be signed and the comments should be left in place and clarified. --Walter Görlitz 19:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the section in question. It is nearly shameless promotion for about zero content. Unless someone decides to expand on the criticism "test plans can cost a lot of money if you don't know what you're doing", we should leave out any mention of criticism whatsoever let alone a promotional reference that supports such a vague statement. Either teach us about test plans or leave it empty. We don't need advertisements. Cheers, J.H. Gorse (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the author of the critic, but I must agree with it. The information is a sugestion from an author in a book, expressing an opinion and is not developed in an explanatory way. It should be explained more carefully. --n@zgul 15:20, 6 Dec 2007

I think it should be removed. It does not clearly state the direct disadvantages of using test plans, and did not prove that using an alternative or not using test plans at all is more efficient/effective. The writing style is also like the ones used in magazine articles. --s7even

Test plan samples

Wow, you leave for a couple days, and someone gutted the test plan samples (examples of what was to go in each section). When I have time, I'll come back and put them back in. I remember using them from here once before, and I needed them to get them again. If you are looking for them, pull the previous version for now. -- for a new job. --Bomarc (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should check out the section on the "Errors in this page" before you add anything back. It might be better to add the examples to this talk page. Also, you might want to put your comments below the others, rather than above. I moved yours to fit in. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External link question

Can I add an external link to a testplan repository in external references -> http://testforge.net/ ? I will not proceed without positive agreement.Helpub64 (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has been removing links to sites under the auspices that they are commercial or SPAM which they are not. In the one in the External links section is a free example albeit on a publisher's web site. The tools are just that. No reasonable open source tools exist. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the multiple reverts: an Edit War does not help anybody and it is in poor taste.

WP:ELNO, "Links normally to be avoided", seems clear that we need to keep corporate sites away from the Wikipedia articles. Sure, some corporate sites also have some good information but the rule remains. No Spam. Grantmidnight (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the multiple deletions. An Edit War does not help anybody and it is in poor taste. SPAM links should be avoided, WP:SPAM, but you're not deleting SPAM, you're deleting valid information hosted on commercial sites. If you would like to actually read the information in those links before removing and indicate which of the twenty entries at WP:ELNO they offend, I would be glad to discuss it. Until then, you're vandalizing the article by suggesting commercial sites are all SPAM. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further. The Test Management Software section includes Speed Test and Test Link which are both open source. Only spiraTest is a commercial product. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to allow Speedtest, TestLink, and SourcePage. Inflectra SpiraTest and Stellman & Green Consulting are clearly commercial sites and are not allowed. TestingSoftware is a Blog and is not allowed. The fact that there may be good information on the sites is not the point. Wikipedia has a strict policy against commercialism. Grantmidnight (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How magnanimous of you. Please stop this. The blog has good information and will stay. The link to the free article will stay because it has even better information. Take it to an admin if you think I'm wronging you or Wikipedia in some way. You're gutting the article by removing important information. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question has been posted to Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. Cheers. Grantmidnight (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response posted in Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard indicates unsuitability of some material. This has been removed. Grantmidnight (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-1:2013

IEEE 829 has been superceded by ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-1:2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.210.196 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]