Software test psychology problem
(This article is reproduced from Software Engineering Expert Network
Www.21cmm.com)
1. The process of program testing has a high degree of deactivation of human activities, and it has an important psychological role in establishing appropriate goals. If our purpose is to prove that there is no error in the program, we will don't consciously do it in this direction; that is, we will tend to pick the test data that makes the probability of possible probability. On the other hand, if our goal is to prove that there is a mistake in the program, you will choose some test data that is easy to discover the wrong program. The latter attitude will add more value than the former to the program. The definition of the test means that the process of program test is destructive, and the degree of its degree even reaches the unable tolerable. Most people in society are constructive, not destructive. People tend to create an item, not easy to destroy - items. Therefore, the program is bad - items. Therefore, the destructive definition of program testing makes people daunting. Program test definitions implicit how to design test conditions (measured data), and who should be and should not test a given program. Psychology research also tells us that when people are doing something that is unsuitable or impossible, it is often not good. For example, if a person has a three-minute cross-flock on the Sunday "New York Times", we will see that this person will be almost no progress, because he will actually do it. Alimental to give up their own efforts. However, if we ask for 4 hours to solve this problem, then we will see that he has a big progress in the beginning of 10 minutes. Defining program tests as a process of finding an error in the program, making testing into tasks that can be done, thereby overcoming the problem of psychological existence. Another irritating problem is that even if the program has completed the expected requirements, it may still contain an error. That is, if the program does not work as required, it is obviously wrong, but if the program does not do it, it is wrong. 2. Programmers should avoid testing their own program developers being specified to test their code is a very bad thing. Development and testing are different activities. Development is a behavior created or established, a module or whole system. The sole purpose of the test is to prove that a module or system is not working properly. There is essential contradiction between these two activities. A person is unlikely to play two troche-standing characters. Based on this idea, the participants should be restricted in the test. Give them a suitable task is to perform test-cell testing that is possible with possible minimum layers. Different When a programmer completed the design, after the constructive work of writing programs, he suddenly changed his views overnight, trying to form a completely negative attitude towards the program, it is very difficult. Many households know that revealing the paste wallpaper (destructive process> is not easy, if the wallpaper is originally by him, not someone posted, he will feel unbearable depression. So, most of the programmers Because you can't enter your necessary mental state (not to reveal the wrong attitude in your own program), you can't effectively test your own procedure. In addition to this psychological issue: there is an important issue: It may contain errors due to the misunderstandings of the programmer's description or description of the problem. If this is the case, when the programmer tests its own program, it is often difficult to discover the problem with the same misunderstanding. Further, Seeing testing is a passion or - this book is working, or working similar to writing comments. As many authors know, proofreading or criticizing their own work is very difficult. That is, in their own work It is often not possible to find out the psychological state of people. The above view does not mean that programmers cannot test their own procedures. However, compared to additional-out program testing, it will be more effective. More successful. Note: This argument does not apply to error correction (correcting known errors), and the author's author's author error correction is more efficient.
