Skip to main content

Counting Strings

If you've done the Rapid Software Testing course, then you'll probably be familiar with the Perlclip tool, from James Bach. If not, its a useful tool for generating strings of test text. In particular I find the Perlclip Counter-string function to be pretty useful. Counterstring builds a string that indicates its own length. E.g.: "*3*5*7*10*" The last asterisk is the 10th character.

Now available as a Firefox Add-on!

I've taken the counterstring functionality and implemented it in HTML and Javascript. While this form does not do everything the original [and the best] does, It might be useful for it to be accessible anywhere via a web page. All credit for the usefulness of this goes to James Bach, all the bugs are probably my doing.

Thats right - its got bugs, like you don't have to enter a character for the 'mark' or it lets you use numbers for the 'mark'. Older versions did odd things in IE6 etc. There are no doubt many more bugs...

Display a string of length:

The character: marks the spot.



The String you requested is:

The string created has a length of:


Comments

  1. There's a good reason to allow numbers for the mark: some fields prevent or reject the entry of non-alphanumeric characters before other processing happens. Some do the same with non-numeric characters. So right away, I wouldn't classify "lets you use numbers for the 'mark'" as a bug, but a feature.

    ---Michael B.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Any bugs added on purpose? :)
    Regards,
    Ajay

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good initiative & very helpful :-)

    I like the error message "Go try a different browser" funny :-)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brilliant Peter.

    I hope you will add more and more to this very useful take on the tool by James.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The gamification of Software Testing

A while back, I sat in on a planning meeting. Many planning meetings slide awkwardly into a sort of ad-hoc technical analysis discussion, and this was no exception. With a little prompting, the team started to draw up what they wanted to build on a whiteboard.

The picture spoke its thousand words, and I could feel that the team now understood what needed to be done. The right questions were being asked, and initial development guesstimates were approaching common sense levels.

The discussion came around to testing, skipping over how they might test the feature, the team focused immediately on how long testing would take.

When probed as to how the testing would be performed? How we might find out what the team did wrong? Confused faces stared back at me. During our ensuing chat, I realised that they had been using BDD scenarios [only] as a metric of what testing needs to be done and when they are ready to ship. (Now I knew why I was hired to help)



There is nothing wrong with checking t…

A h̶i̶t̶c̶h̶h̶i̶k̶e̶r̶'s̶ software tester's guide to randomised testing - Part 1

Mostly Harmless, I've talked and written about randomisation as a technique in software testing several times over the last few years. It's great to see people's eyes light up when they grok the concept and its potential. 
The idea that they can create random test data on the fly and pour this into the app step back and see what happens is exciting to people looking to find new blockers on their apps path to reliability.
But it's not long before a cloud appears in their sunny demeanour and they start to conceive of the possible pitfalls. Here are a few tips on how to avert the common apparent blockers. (Part 1) Problem: I've created loads of random numbers as input data, but how will I know the answer the software returns, is correct? - Do I have to re-implement the whole app logic in my test code?
Do you remember going to the fun-fair as a kid? Or maybe you recall taking your kids now as an adult? If so then you no doubt are familiar with the height restriction -…

How did you find that bug? Are we sitting comfortably, then I'll begin.

How did you find that bug? - They asked with a sort of puzzled "he dun't thunk like uz" look on their faces. An expression that suggested they were unsure whether to commend the discovery or gather their pitchforks and organise a well overdue witch burning.

Likewise, I now knew why they needed me. The team members were genuinely hard working people trying to build something new and exciting. But they lacked one thing, someone exploring & asking questions - trying to find out new things about their application. Exploring is literally a step into the unknown, and that can be uncomfortable for those not experienced in how to do it well.
So how did I find that bug? It's easy to tell a story of how I tried that particular input value because... Paragraph 3 of v4.6 of the requirements document stated that the user shall indeed on occasion X given input Y in Chrome v62 do... Or spout some other overly verbose explanation of why that broken 'scenario' came to be…