Traditional software testing is the process of evaluating a software application through test scripts to ensure it meets specified requirements and is free of bugs.
In a traditional (often Waterfall) environment, testing is typically a distinct phase that occurs after the code has been fully developed but before the product is released to the user.
Key characteristics
In a traditional (often Waterfall) environment, testing is typically a distinct phase that occurs after the code has been fully developed but before the product is released to the user.
Key characteristics
- Sequential timing: It usually follows a "test-last" approach, occurring at the end of the development lifecycle.
- Verification & validation: It confirms the software does what it was designed to do (Verification) and ensures it fulfills the user's actual needs (Validation).
- Documentation-heavy: Relies on formal and detailed test plans, test cases, and requirement traceability matrices, without much room for flexibility.
- Goal-Oriented: The primary objective is to identify bugs, errors, or gaps in the software to ensure quality and reliability.
Pros and cons
The Pros
- Stability and clarity: Since testing starts after the design phase, the "goalposts" rarely move. Testers know exactly what to look for based on fixed documentation, which can be good for heavily regulated industries where requirements can be very explicit, specific and detailed.
- Structured control: It’s easy to track progress and milestones. You know exactly when the testing phase begins and ends.
- Discipline: The heavy emphasis on documentation (test plans, scripts, and logs) creates a highly traceable audit trail, again a big plus in regulated industries.
- Reduced complexity: Because the software is "finished" before testing starts, there’s no need to worry about the code changing while you're trying to find bugs.
The Cons
- Risk and rigidity: Late Bug Discovery: Finding a fundamental flaw at the very end of the cycle is expensive and time-consuming to fix, which means that testing is often perceived as a bottleneck.
- High risk of delays: If testing reveals a major issue, the entire release date is pushed back, as there is no "buffer" time. This can lead to bugs being ignored or swept under the rug.
- Lack of Flexibility: It’s very difficult to pivot. If a user's needs change halfway through development, traditional testing usually can't account for it until the next major version. The result of this rigidity is additional costs, in terms of time and money.
- The "Wall" effect: There is often a disconnect between developers and testers, leading to a "throw it over the wall" mentality rather than collaboration. Isolated teams communicate less effectively, which can cause misunderstandings and rivalries.
