Customer Reviews

Object-Oriented Software Testing: A Hierarchical Approach

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This book definitely has some good ideas about software testing. However, I found his use of object technology to describe the testing processing and artifacts produced by that process to be confusing. Objectitus maybe?

I might be better to read his references instead, e.g. Bezier.

I am curious to talk with others about this.

I don't know what the other reviewers was smoking. THEY must work for companies that puts out crap software. ... However this book contains good reference material on how to set up a test approach. ...

I know a good software testing company and a Fortune 500 company in San Francisco that utilize some of the content from this book as part of their testing foundation.

A hierarchical approach (you can read it on pg 101) does allow one to prepare a structural testing gameplan. If you do not do all of your proper unit testing in the beginning, as pointed out in the book. The cost will be overwhelming at the end of the cycle. ...

With a correct structure, one has a plan. And we know that "failure to plan is to plan for failure."

If the famous SQA Boris Beizer wrote the foreword to this book, it is a technical endorsement to Siegal's knowledge on this topic.

As a Software Quality Assurance Professional, I believe this book is not the absolute answer to testing. But it is a good start for SQA newbies and an above adequate reference text for SQA Professionals of all levels.

This book is pretentious ("You don't read this book like other books. This book is a system."). Its author tries far too hard to sound like a deep thinker (saying that testing code should be organized like a pyramid is OK; giving a reference to a book on pyramids is, well, silly). And there's actually very little in this book on how to go about designing, constructing, and running tests of object-oriented programs

I thought that this book was quite annoying to read. It didn't provide tangible guidelines through examples and suggestions.

BTW, why does it sound like one of the authors, Siegel, wrote the prior review? Why did this reviewer only cite one of the two authors' names --Siegels? Sort of fishy...