This chapter gives an overview of the different test tools. Topics include how to choose and introduce these tools and the preconditions for using them.
Due to the fast development of new testing tools, this chapter will undergo a major revision in the ISTQB syllabus version 2015. A reader preparing for an exam based on the new syllabus is advised to study the ISTQB syllabus in addition to this chapter.
Test tools are normally used for these purposes:
There are tools that accomplish one single task as well as tools that have several purposes. Tools for separate test execution, test execution automation, and generating or migrating test data belong to the first group. When tools have several capabilities, they are often called tool suites. Such a suite may, for example, automate test execution, logging, and evaluation.
Test framework is a term often used in discussions of test tools. In practice, it has at least three meanings:
For the purpose of the ISTQB Foundation Level syllabus, the terms test framework and test harness are used interchangeably and are defined by the first two meanings.
Most projects involve a remote repository (one that's on a different machine than the clients). This chapter discusses remote repositories, access methods, how to set up each access method, and security considerations for each type of access.
This chapter also discusses the two access methods for local repositories: local and fork. The fork method presents a way to access a local repository as if it were a remote repository.
CVS can operate equally well as a single program that handles both the sandbox and the repository or as a pair of programsa client managing the sandbox and a server managing the repository.
CVS can run as a single program if both sandbox and repository are on the same computer, or if the repository is on a file server and the computer that the sandbox is on perceives the shared directories as local.
If you have a personal repository for private work, you may choose to keep the repository on the same computer as your sandbox. If you are sharing a server with several other people, you may have a shared repository on the same server as your sandboxes. In such situations, be particularly careful to back up the repository. When the repository and the sandbox are on different computers, each acts as a partial backup of the other. When they are on the same computer, that inherent backup is not available.
Reducing the impact of the automobile on the environment was important even before we realized, in the late twentieth century, how much the oil we burned in our cars was contributing to climate change. There were already programs and regulations to cut the tailpipe emissions of pollutants like carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, and airborne particulates, which created the unhealthy air of most North American cities. New technologies improved the way gasoline was burned, but instead of becoming more fuel efficient, cars became heavier and more powerful. Because the U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency standards were much less stringent for light trucks than for cars, automobile makers promoted the sales of heavier vehicles.
Motor vehicle emissions account for 31 percent of total carbon dioxide, 81 percent of carbon monoxide, and 49 percent of nitrogen oxides released in the United States. Car emissions also contribute to smog, acid rain, and ozone depletion. Now the challenge is to cut greenhouse gases, and there is more competition to build efficient cars and look for alternative ways to power them. Unfortunately, these efforts will hardly dent the production of greenhouse gases. Many of the other problems we face as a result of car dependency will persist and probably get worse. Fortunately, there are other choices we can make about where we live and work and how we get between these places. The use of a bicycle instead of a car (or light truck) creates immediate benefits — for ourselves and the environment.
Wilfried Datler, Nina Hover-Reisner, Maria Fürstaller, & Margit Datler
Paulina's first day at the day care centre
Paulina is 2 years and 8 months of age when she, together with her parents and her 5-year-old sister Sarah, enters the nursery that her older sister Sarah has already been frequenting every day of the working week for the past two years. Paulina has often come along when Sarah was taken here in the mornings or picked up in the afternoons. But now the day has arrived when Paulina's first proper stay at the day care centre is to begin.
From the observational account written by Lisa Schwediauer (2007), which covers Paulina's first day at the centre, it can be divined that two rooms exist at the nursery, where, at certain times of the day, the younger and older children are separately attended to. The group of the younger children, of which Paulina now also is a member, bears the name “Higgledy-Piggledy”; the older children's group, which Sarah belongs to, is called “Circus Tent”.
It should be emphasized that the Rocky Flats project started in a deﬁcit condition. That is, little support for the project existed at any level—especially at the federal level, among regulators and members of Congress—and resistance to the project and skepticism that progress could be achieved was widespread.
In the grand scheme of DOE, Rocky Flats had never been a favored site. It had never been a site that got a lot of money. That was because it was a steelworkers’ site, not a lab. It was blue collar, not Ph.D. The site had never gotten the kind of money some of the other sites had. We went to Washington, D.C., to create a positive presence in the minds of the Hill staff for Rocky Flats.
Contributor 5—Manager, Kaiser-Hill
In light of the rising concern and the possibility of major resistance at the federal and state levels, an external political strategy was required. Effectively managing the power dynamics among various external entities proved to be crucial to the success of the project. Creating a positive political strategy turned out to be a major challenge.