Distinguishing Between Functional and Performance Testing:
In our last guide, we shared instances to clarify the distinctions between Performance Testing, Load Testing, and Stress Testing.
Recommended IPTV Service Providers
- IPTVGREAT – Rating 4.8/5 ( 600+ Reviews )
- IPTVRESALE – Rating 5/5 ( 200+ Reviews )
- IPTVGANG – Rating 4.7/5 ( 1200+ Reviews )
- IPTVUNLOCK – Rating 5/5 ( 65 Reviews )
- IPTVFOLLOW -Rating 5/5 ( 48 Reviews )
- IPTVTOPS – Rating 5/5 ( 43 Reviews )
The scope of Software Testing is extensive and encompasses numerous facets in which the corroboration or affirmation of software functionality can take place. At times, non-functional components might be deprioritized in comparison to the functional components, hence they are typically not executed simultaneously during the software testing process.
=> Access the Entire Performance Testing Tutorials Series Here
This piece reveals the supplementary perks of assuring the quality of a software product when both functional and non-functional factors are examined in consort during various scenarios in the software testing life cycle.
This Guide Will Teach You:
Rapid Divergence Between Performance Testing and Functional Testing
Serial NO | Functional Testing | Performance Testing |
---|---|---|
1 | To validate software’s correctness with specific inputs against anticipated output | To evaluate system’s conduct under different load circumstances |
2 | Can be performed manually or by automation | Renders the best results when automated |
3 | Executed by a solitary user conducting all tasks | Engages multiple users conducting desired tasks |
4 | Calls for collaboration from Customer, Tester, and Developer | Participation demanded from Customer, Tester, Developer, DBA, and Network Management team |
5 | A production-level test environment is not obligatory, and hardware requirements are negligible | Necessitates a test environment parallel to production with multiple hardware facilities to produce the load |
Benefits of Implementing Functional Testing and Performance Testing Concurrently
Functional testing holds significant value in any software quality assurance preceding product launch. The testing typically occurs in a simulated production or testing ambiance depending on actual outcomes to validate the software.
An impending problem is the leakage of flaws:
Testers carry more responsibility than developers with respect to the product’s quality assurance. They endeavor to mitigate any flaw leakage in the tested product, typically focusing predominantly on functional testing to accomplish this target.
The ensuing conversation transpires between a Test Manager and a Tester:
(Test Manager is abbreviated as ‘TM’ and Tester as ‘TR’)
TM: Hey buddy… How is the testing of product ‘A’ progressing?
TR: Yes… We’re advancing very well.
TM: That’s excellent… How about incorporating performance testing while we’re functional testing?
TR: We’re not dealing with that. Our deliverables pivot exclusively around functional testing and shun non-functional aspects. Furthermore, our testing environment doesn’t resemble the production environment in all respects.
The above dialogue prompts a few inquiries:
- Does functional testing hinge on performance testing?
- What if the software’s performance declines, but the product is delivered without evaluating its performance?
- Is the course of performance testing woven into the functional testing procedure?
Testers have grown comfortable with overlooking non-functional aspects unless explicitly mandated. They have a tendency to shelve non-functional testing until the customer identifies issues with software performance during the test.
Hence, there are two questions to ponder:
- Does performance testing impact functional testing?
- Should performance testing be kept as a standalone deliverable, even if it concerns the client?
Performance testing is indispensable!
Software functions based on multiple architectures and models including:
- Response reply models crucial for specific functionalities
- Systems based on transactions
- Load-dependent systems
- Systems reliant on data replication
The response of functional testing according to the aforementioned models is influenced by the system’s performance.
Performance testing demands meticulous consideration from the perspective of automation.
A dialogue ensues between a client and the Test Manager.
(Client is denoted as ‘CL’ and Test Manager as ‘TM’)
CL: With respect to the solution we asked for, I presume there will be iterative testing, correct?
TM: Yes, that can be done. Since iterative testing is highly likely, we suggest automating functional (regression) testing.
CL: Alright, that seems great. Please share your strategy with us for approvals. Automation can produce better outcomes with minimal efforts.
TM: Precisely. We’ll work up the strategy and show you a Proof of Concept.
The above interaction underscores the client’s pursuit of efficacy.
Case Analysis
Company ABC is developing Software A while its testing is being carried out by Company XYZ.
The agreement binding Company ABC and XYZ restricts their mutual interaction. Discussions between the two organizations can be convened only once a week or thrice a month. The system adheres to a request-response model and the development phase has been concluded by Company ABC.
Now the time has come for Company XYZ to undertake formal functional testing of Software A. XYZ commences testing Software A and gives it the nod for live implementation after two testing iterations.
However, notwithstanding the approval from the testing team, the live implementation faces many hurdles. A slew of post-production flaws emerge, and customers encounter multiple issues, including a disruption in complete business process functionality.
So, what’s the actual issue?
- Is collaboration restriction between the development and testing team the problem?
- Could it be possible that the requisites were not thoroughly captured?
- Could the software have not been tested within an appropriate testing environment?
- Or is there a different cause?
After carrying out extensive research and analysis, the following conclusions were drawn:
- Multiple dependent and interdependent applications ran into performance issues while retrieving responses.
- The test inputs utilized were not exhaustive.
- The software’s resilience was not comprehensively addressed.
- There were timing issues among numerous autonomous applications.
- The software testing comprised multiple rework scenarios that were overlooked.
Therefore, the planning team recommended the following corrective measures:
- Augment interaction between the development and testing teams.
- Include all interdependent applications in functional system testing.
- Amend request and response timeout values to account for non-production environments.
- Imbue a broad spectrum of inputs, from uncomplicated to intricate, in functional tests.
- Perform non-functional tests, chiefly performance and load testing, as advised by the corrective team.
- In addition to system testing, carry out system integration testing.
- Maintain a minimal gap between iterations to retest previously identified bugs.
- Rectify all bugs detected in previous iterations in the current iteration.
The testing team executed all the suggested measures, leading to the identification of an array of defects in a short time frame.
Insights:
- The software’s live implementation timeline considerably improved due to the optimization of the test cycle timings.
- There was significant development in enhancing software quality, resulting in a considerable drop in post-implementation support tickets.
- The number of reworks declined with gradual improvements in quality noted between dissimilar iterations.
Final Thoughts
Conducting non-functional testing in parallel with functional testing offers supplementary benefits and contributes to the overall quality of the software. This method facilitates the identification of performance-related bugs (specific to the test environment and its dependencies) and reduces hypotheses about functional issues.
Thorough planning and coordination are required to conduct both functional and non-functional testing (at a minimum level) to uphold strong relationships among all the stakeholders involved in the project.
About the Author: This article was penned by Nagarajan, a test lead with over 6 years of industry experience who has worked in various functional areas such as banking, airlines, and telecom. He possesses proficiency in both manual and automated testing.
Our next guide will delve more profoundly into the Performance Test Plan and Test Strategy.
=> Access the Entire Performance Testing Tutorials Series Here
PREVIOUS Tutorial | UPCOMING Tutorial