Google软件测试之道：英文非扫描版，超清晰带标签

Google

软件测试

5星 · 超过95%的资源需积分: 46 161 浏览量更新于2024-07-19 收藏 8.17MB PDF 举报

身份认证购VIP最低享 7 折!

30元优惠券

"《Google软件测试之道》是Google内部测试实践的详细阐述，由James Whittaker撰写，提供了Google在软件测试领域的独特见解和方法。这本书对于了解如何在快速发展的应用测试环境中保持测试实践的相关性、竞争力和意义具有重要价值。书中包含Google在自动化测试、混合测试策略、内外部资源融合以及野外测试等方面的经验分享，旨在为其他测试人员提供创新的解决方案和更好的应用发布模式。" 《Google软件测试之道》的核心知识点包括： 1. **创新测试实践**：Google作为软件测试领域的创新者，书中揭示了它如何在自动化测试中融入人工努力，结合内部与外部资源，并开创野外测试与实验室测试相结合的新模式。 2. **敏捷与持续集成**：Google推崇快速迭代和每日发布，这需要高效的测试流程来支持。书中可能详细介绍了Google如何构建适应这种环境的测试框架。 3. **自动化测试**：James Whittaker可能探讨了Google如何利用自动化测试提高效率，减少错误，并确保产品质量。这可能涉及测试脚本编写、测试框架设计和自动化工具的选用。 4. **混合测试策略**：结合自动化和手动测试，书中的内容可能讨论了如何在两种方式间找到平衡，以最大化测试覆盖率和效果。 5. **资源管理**：书中可能讲述了Google如何协调内部团队和外包资源，以实现高效协同，优化测试过程。 6. **实时反馈系统**：借鉴Google的“heads-up displays”概念，可能介绍了如何建立实时监控和反馈系统，以便快速响应问题并改进产品。 7. **计算机科学测试方法**：作者采取的计算机科学视角，可能使读者理解测试的理论基础，以及如何将这些理论应用于实际测试策略和技术中。 8. **解决问题和改进**：书中可能会分享Google在解决新问题和推出更好应用过程中采用的测试创新方法，帮助读者理解如何在不断变化的技术环境中保持竞争力。 9. **案例研究**：通过具体的项目实例，书中的内容可能深入解析了Google在不同测试阶段所遇到的挑战及解决方案，为读者提供实战参考。 10. **未来测试趋势**：James Whittaker的观点和预测可能涵盖了软件测试的未来发展趋势，为读者提供前瞻性的思考。这本书对任何希望提升测试实践的专业人士来说都是宝贵的资源，无论是Google的员工还是其他行业的测试工程师，都能从中获得灵感和实用的指导。

资源详情

资源推荐

ptg7759704

worked, of course, but in the process, we learned valuable lessons and

practices that are applicable to any company that wants to grow or move at

the speed of Google. We learned how to have attention to quality without

derailing development or the speed at which we got things done. The

resulting process, with some insights into the thinking behind them and

what makes them work, is what this book is about. If you want to under-

stand how Google met the challenges of testing in the twenty-first century

on modern Internet, mobile, and client applications, then you have come to

the right place. I may wish it was me who was telling the rest of the story,

but James and his coauthors beat me to it and they have nailed the essence

of what testing is like here at Google.

One final note on the book: James Whittaker is the guy who made this

book happen. He came to Google, dug in to the culture, took on big and

important projects, and shipped products such as Chrome, Chrome OS,

and dozens of smaller ones. Somewhere in that time, he became the public

face of Google testing. But, unlike some of his other books, much of this

material is not his. He is as much a reporter on the evolution of how

Google tests software as he is a contributor to it. Keep that in mind as you

read it because James will probably try to take all the credit for himself!

As Google grew from 200 to over 20,000 employees, there were many

people who played important roles in developing and putting into action

our testing strategy. James credits many of them and they have contributed

directly by writing sidebars and giving interviews that are published in

this book. However, no one, not me, James, or anyone else mentioned in

this book, has had as much influence as Patrick Copeland, the architect of

our current organizational structure and leader of Google’s Engineering

Productivity team. Every tester in the company reports up through Patrick

and he is the executive whose vision created what James has documented

and contributed to here. If anyone can take credit for how Google tests

software today, it’s Patrick. I am not just saying this because he’s my boss; I

am saying it because he’s my boss and he told me to say it!

Alberto Savoia is an engineering director and innovation agitator at

Google. He first joined Google in 2001 when, among other things, he man-

aged the launch of Google AdWords and played a key role in kick-starting

a developer / unit testing culture in the company. He is also the author of

The Way of Testivus and of “Beautiful Tests” in O’Reilly’s Beautiful Code.

Note by James Whittaker: I couldn’t agree more! As a scribe and jour-

nalist in this process, I owe most of the material to the organization that

Patrick has created. And I am not just saying this because he gave me per-

mission to write this book. As my boss, he made me write this book!

Foreword by Alberto Savoia xv

ptg7759704

A Fault to Guide Software Testing

010101011011000100100100101010110110001001001001010

Foreword by Patrick Copeland

My adventure with Google started in March of 2005. If you read Alberto’s

foreword, you know a bit about the conditions of Google around that time.

It was small but beginning to show signs of serious growing pains. It was

also a time of rapid technological change as the web world was welcoming

dynamic content and the cloud was becoming a viable alternative to the

then dominant world of client-server.

That first week, I sat with the rest of the Nooglers topped with a tri-

colored propeller hat listening to the founders discussing corporate strate-

gy at a weekly company meeting called TGIF. I knew little about what I

had gotten myself into. I was naïve enough to be excited and aware

enough to be more than a little intimated. The speed and scale of Google

made my previous decade of 5-year ship cycles seem like poor preparation.

Worse still, I think I was the only tester wearing one of those Noogler hats.

Surely there were more of us somewhere!

I joined Google when engineering was just shy of 1,000 people. The

testing team had about 50 full timers and some number of temporary

workers I never could get my head around. The team was called “Testing

Services” and focused the majority of its energy on UI validation and

jumping into projects on an as-needed basis. As you might imagine, it

wasn’t exactly the most glorified team at Google.

But at that time it was enough. Google’s primary businesses were

Search and Ads. The Google world was much smaller than it is today, and

a thorough job of exploratory testing was enough to catch most quality

concerns. But the world was slowly changing. Users were hitting the web

in unprecedented numbers and the document-based web was giving way

to the app-based web. You could feel the inevitability of growth and

change where the ability to scale and get to market quickly would be the

difference between relevance and…a place you did not want to be.

Inside Google, the scale and complexity issues were buckling Testing

Services. What worked well with small homogenous projects was now

burning out good testers as they leapt from one project that was on fire to

the next. And topping all that off was Google’s insistence to release quick-

er. Something needed to give and I had the choice between scaling this

manually intensive process or changing the game completely. Testing

Services needed a radical transformation to match the radical change hap-

pening to the industry and the rest of Google.

I would very much like to say that I drew upon my vast wealth of

experience and conjured the perfect test organization, but the truth is that

my experience had taught me little more than the wrong way to do things.

Every test organization I ever worked as part of or led was dysfunctional

in one way or the other. Stuff was always broken. The code was broken, the

ptg7759704

tests were broken, and the team was broken! I knew what it meant to be

buried under quality and technical debt where every innovative idea was

squashed lest it risk breaking the fragile product it depended on. If my

experience taught me anything, it was how not to do testing.

In all my interactions up to this point, one thing about Google was

clear. It respected computer science and coding skill. Ultimately, if testers

were to join this club, they would have to have good computer

science fundamentals and some coding prowess. First-class citizenship

demanded it.

If I was going to change testing at Google, I needed to change what it

meant to be a tester. I used to try to imagine the perfect team and how such

a team would shoulder the quality debt and I kept coming back to the

same premise: The only way a team can write quality software is when the

entire team is responsible for quality. That meant product managers, devel-

opers, testers…everyone. From my perspective, the best way to do this was

to have testers capable of making testing an actual feature of the code base.

The testing feature should be equal to any feature an actual customer

might see. The skill set I needed to build features was that of a developer.

Hiring testers who can code features is difficult; finding feature devel-

opers who can test is even more difficult. But the status quo was worse

than either so I forged ahead. I wanted testers who could do more for their

products and at the same time, I wanted to evolve the nature and owner-

ship of the testing work, which meant asking for far larger investment

from the development teams. This is the one organizational structure I had

yet to see implemented in all my time in the industry and I was convinced

it was right for Google, and I thought that as a company, we were ready

for it.

Unfortunately, few others in the company shared my passion for such

profound and fundamental change. As I began the process of socializing

my equal-but-different vision for the software testing role, I eventually

found it difficult to find a lunch partner! Engineers seemed threatened by

the very notion that they would have to play a bigger role in testing, point-

ing out “that’s what test is for.” Among testers, the attitude was equally

unsavory as many had become comfortable in their roles and the status

quo had such momentum that change was becoming a very hard problem.

I kept pressing the matter mostly out of fear that Google’s engineering

processes would become so bogged down in technical and quality debt

that I’d be back to the same five-year ship cycles I had so happily left

behind in the old client-server world. Google is a company of geniuses

focused on innovation and that entrepreneurial makeup is simply incom-

patible with long product ship cycles. This was a battle worth fighting and

I convinced myself that once these geniuses understood the idea of devel-

opment and testing practices for a streamlined and repeatable “technology

factory,” they would come around. They would see that we were not a

startup anymore and with our rapidly growing user base and increasing

technical debt of bugs and poorly structured code would mean the end of

their coder’s playground.

xviii Foreword by Patrick Copeland

ptg7759704

I toured the product teams making my case and trying to find the

sweet spot for my argument. To developers, I painted a picture of continu-

ous builds, rapid deployment, and a development process that moved

quickly, leaving more time for innovation. To testers, I appealed to their

desire to be full engineering partners of equal skill, equal contribution, and

equal compensation.

Developers had the attitude that if we were going to hire people skilled

enough to do feature development, then we should have them do feature

development. Some of them were so against the idea that they filled my

manager’s inbox with candid advice on how to deal with my madness.

Fortunately, my manager ignored those recommendations.

Testers, to my surprise, reacted similarly. They were vested in the way

things were and quick to bemoan their status, but slow to do anything

about it.

My manager’s reaction to the complaints was telling: “This is Google,

if you want something done, then do it.”

And so that’s what I did. I assembled a large enough cadre of like-

minded folks to form interview loops and we began interviewing candi-

dates. It was tough going. We were looking for developer skills and a tester

mindset. We wanted people who could code and wanted to apply that skill

to the development of tools, infrastructure, and test automation. We had to

rethink recruiting and interviewing and then explain that process to the

hiring committees who were entrenched and comfortable with the way

things were.

The first few quarters were rough. Good candidates were often torpe-

doed in the vetting process. Perhaps they were too slow to solve some

arcane coding problem or didn’t fare well in something that someone

thought was important but that had nothing to do with testing skill. I

knew hiring was going to be difficult and made time each week to write

hiring justification after hiring justification. These went to none other than

Google co-founder Larry Page who was (and still is) the last approval in

the hiring process. He approved enough of them that my team began to

grow. I often wonder if every time Larry hears my name he still thinks,

“Hiring testers!”

Of course, by this time, I had made enough noise trying to get buy-in

that we had no choice but to perform. The entire company was watching

and failure would have been disastrous. It was a lot to expect from a small

test team supported by an ever-changing cast of vendors and temps. But

even as we struggled to hire and I dialed back the number of temps we

used, I noticed change was taking hold. The more scarce testing resources

became, the more test work was left for developers to do. Many of the

teams rose to the challenge. I think if technology had stayed the same as it

was, this alone would have taken us nearly where we needed to be.

But technology wasn’t standing still and the rules of development and

testing were changing rapidly. The days of static web content were gone.

Browsers were still trying to keep up. Automation around the browser was

a year behind the already tardy browsers. Making testing a development

Foreword by Patrick Copeland xix

剩余313页未读，继续阅读

dongsong1117

粉丝: 28
资源: 48

Google软件测试之道：英文非扫描版，超清晰带标签

Google软件测试之道_13438767 (2).zip_CT4_google

google软件测试之道

Google软件测试之道（中、英两版）

google软件测试之道 英文版

Google软件测试之道下载

google 软件测试之道 csdn 下载

google软件测试之道下载

google测试之道.pdf下载

软件测试有关的名人以及事例

探索式软件测试.pdf 下载

企业人事管理系统软件测试计划,人事管理系统软件测试计划.docx

python打开谷歌浏览器新标签页_Selenium打开关闭浏览器新标签页

playwright自动化测试切换浏览器标签页

软件测试哪几个游览器的兼容性

video标签打不开谷歌版本低兼容

谷歌插件获取iframe标签

c++测试单元google

springboot freemarker 自定义列表循环标签 带网页标签的示例

google 的扫描代码

Google Guava的测试用例覆盖率

最新资源

google软件测试之道英文版

springboot freemarker 自定义列表循环标签带网页标签的示例