There was a palpable tension in the conference room that left everyone in a disarray. What did we overlook? That was the question written on everyone’s face.
The fact that our system was permitting users to duplicate existing records without any corresponding error message was a glaring issue, notably for an insurance firm.
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 team dispersed once the agreement was reached to address the problem. Investigations unveiled that the client had omitted to highlight anything about record duplication in the specifications document. Consequently, nobody thought to ask the necessary questions or anticipate this situation.
This is only one such case.
Over my career spanning a decade or more, I have come across many examples of projects being negatively impacted due to substandard or incomplete requirements.
Nevertheless, in an imperfect world, we must learn to navigate such obstacles. Handling projects without requirements, or with poorly defined ones, can be a nightmare.
Let me elaborate:
The Complications Arising from Bad, Insufficient, and Contradictory Requirements:
#1) Missing requirements: Lacking requirements, we’re only left with suppositions and guessing, leading to uncertainity. It’s a significant hurdle to test a product or application without a reference point, often leading to unnecessary work, bugs reported by end-users, and project hold-ups.
- How are you supposed to report a system crash when there’s no pre-defined behavior to guide you?
- How do you illustrate that a homepage loading time of 100 seconds is not acceptable without specified performance criteria?
For additional insights on how to manage projects without requirements, refer to our previous article: How to Test an Application without Requirements?
#2) Inadequate requirements: The proverb, “Partial knowledge can be more treacherous than complete ignorance,” is particularly true when it comes to handling insufficient requirements.
Implementing a poorly-defined requirement can result in significant risks.
- How can you validate if the search results pop-up is acceptable when the solitary requirement mentions that search results should be appropriate but does not specify what constitutes an appropriate search?
- How can you interpret a requirement like, “A ‘Forgot password’ feature should be implemented to help users to regenerate/reset forgotten passwords” without knowing the desired workflow, leading to discrepancies in implementation?
#3) Competing requirements: Asking someone to concurrently perform two conflicting tasks results in perplexity for the individual and the system alike.
- How do you validate an application with conflicting requirements such as:
- The application should always load on the home page.
- Users must log in to access the application.
- How do you prioritize the subsequent requirements:
- The game application should advance players to the next stage once their score hits 1000.
- Players should get redirected to a free subscription page after reaching a score of 1000.
These examples illustrate how inadequate, scant and contradictory requirements can pose challenges.
In the software business, customers often find it difficult to clearly define their precise requirements. As QA engineers, we have to accept the reality of loosely defined or non-existent requirements as part of our roles.
While it may be arduous to manage ambiguous or hazy specifications, it is not insurmountable. Here are some potential remedies:
Handling Unrefined Requirements as a QA Engineer:
Method #1) Explore and Educate Yourself:
When confronted with vague requirements, one tactic is to examine other applications, comprehend standard expected behavior, take user comfort into account, and use rational thinking. In addition, using exploratory testing can be advantageous when specifications are lacking clarity.
In the face of ambiguous requirements, emphasizing user experience and convenience can often be the best approach.
Method #2) Leverage experience:
Drawing from domain knowledge, overall testing wisdom, previous occurrences, and personal perceptions can assist in resolving puzzling situations and requirements.
Method #3) Use wireframes as reference:
Wireframes act as a graphical representation of requirements, providing crucial details that can aid in comprehending the anticipated product or application. They can facilitate more efficient testing.
Learn More => Wireframes – Should They Really Be Tested? And If So, How?
Method #4) Engage in Collegial Discussions:
When met with confusion, sharing the situation with knowledgeable colleagues can help decipher the specifications. Every person brings their distinctive experiences, insights, and analytical abilities to the discussion, resulting in improved comprehension and a boost in self-confidence.
Method #5) Seek Client Clarification:
The client is the proprietor of the product or application, and it makes sense to seek their input when requirements are unclear. However, peppering the client with countless questions should be avoided. Some preliminary analysis and knowledge of best practices is essential prior to reaching out to them with specific queries and feasible solutions.
Wrap Up
Unquestionably, loosely defined or nonexistent specifications are a part of a QA engineer’s professional life. Not only must we acknowledge this, but we also need to keep a positive spirit and focus on finding solutions. As QA engineers, we play a pivotal role in keeping applications on course and forestalling failure. A toast to us!
About the author: This motivating post was crafted by Bhumika M., a project lead with more than 10 years of software testing wisdom.
As always, happy testing…We eagerly await your feedback, observations, and viewpoints.