Sunday, June 14, 2009

My Definition of a Boombastic Test Style

While surfing the Web I came across an interesting post on Test Republic. One of the Member Pradeep C asked a question "Wanted to understand the definition, and process involved for Infrastructure Testing". He got a reply by Michael Bolton which, although it had some valid points, was not really an answer to his question.

It got me thinking about a good definition about Infrastructure Testing. In my opinion definitions have more value if they are based on Standards. I took a look at the well known OSI Layer model for a quick answer

Although this is about Infrastructure, it is about Network Protocol design. So this does not give a definition of Infrastructure Testing. I have to look for other standards to help me describe Infrastructure Testing.

So for the moment I can not help Pradeep C by telling him what Infrastructure Testing is about, but I can tell him that it is an exciting and challenging form of Testing. In other words Boombastic!


Michael said...

How do you know that this is what Pradeep C was asking about? Other than the fact that many kinds of testing (at least to testers) are exciting and challenging, how do you know that the kind that he is talking about is exciting and challenging?

Pradeep's question is an instance of the unicorn question. I hold that it's dangerous and misleading--and thus tantamount to testing malpractice--to answer such a question unless you have a very, very good idea about what the questioner means, or unless you're prepared to offer a number of possibilities (it might mean...). Standards aren't important in this discussion, either, because there's no way of knowing (without more information) if the standard is relevant in Pradeep C's context. Definitions don't have more value (or less) if they're based on standards; they just have more context.

---Michael B.

TestWithUs said...

SWIFT Interview questions on

For selenium solution visit

For QTP interview questions