i’m not a profoundly unfit person ( physical health wise 🙂 ) but i have been bitten by the “get fit” bug lately.
as part of my daily routine i go for atleast a 3 km run . I follow a path along roads and larger streets .
normally i do some basic tests at each intersections and street ends for cars,pedestrian lights etc
and according to my risk analysis there are some low/no activity areas where in i just whizz past 🙂
The other day , at a deserted no exit street I was in my usual whizzing past mode ( because I had been lulled into a false sense of security from my previous month of experience on this street) when a car suddenly seem to appear from now where and I almost got run down !
This being NewZealand, the driver apologized , in fact it was my mistake since I was being careless and I also waved and apology back .
No real damage done and I moved on .
But this episode got me thinking about a testing parallel –
what happens if due to a seemingly unrelated change a break in an existing “stable” functionality happens or our perception of any existing “stable” functionality is proved wrong.
Obviously, first reaction would be fire fighting and counter the situation .
but what would be our strategy afterwards
Do we –
1. just put the fire out and move on thinking ” this would not happen again ” ” once in a blue moon” “we can not control or predict such highly unlikely event”
2. Do we tighten our regression detection just for that functional area ?
3. Do we tighten our regression detection just for all “stable” functional area ?Raise our regression guard one level up ?
4. Do we re visit our impact analysis and see what went wrong in our understanding of the change’s impact ?
dear readers ,your thoughts on this ?
Leave a Reply