Assignment: Exploratory Testing in Real Conditions
The grading feature for this assignment is currently in development. To submit your work and receive grading, please visit the legacy dojo:
Case Study: Buggy Car Marketplace Website
🌐 Test Target (IMPORTANT)
You will test the following public website:
This site is deliberately buggy, created for learning and practicing software testing.
Unexpected behavior is expected.
🎓 Module Overview
This module simulates real-world exploratory testing under professional constraints.
You are evaluated on:
- How you think
- How you prioritize risk
- How you use limited time
- How you communicate findings
- How honestly you reflect on your own work
You are not evaluated on:
- Total hours worked
- Bug volume
- "Hero" behavior
🎯 Learning Objectives
By completing this module, you will be able to:
- Perform exploratory testing without test cases
- Apply charter-based exploratory testing
- Execute assigned testing with excellence
- Communicate bugs clearly and professionally
- Reflect on coverage, gaps, and risk
- Think like a QA, not just a bug finder
🧠 Scenario
You are assigned as a black-box tester to a product near release.
The product is an online car marketplace, including:
- Car listings and browsing
- Search and filtering
- Car detail pages
- User registration & login
- Rating / booking flows
You receive:
- ❌ No requirements
- ❌ No test cases
- ❌ No documentation
Your mission:
Deliver the maximum testing value within your assigned scope and time.
⏱️ Timebox Policy (CRITICAL)
⏳ Total Effort: ~14 Hours (Hard Limits)
This module consists of three required phases, each with a hard timebox.
⚠️ Timeboxes must not be exceeded.
❌ No Time-Cheating Rule
- Do not test outside assigned timeboxes
- Do not "continue later" without counting time
- Do not hide or fragment testing time
In professional QA work, honesty about time spent is non-negotiable.
🎯 Bug Volume & Scope Clarification
In real-world QA work:
- It is ideal to log many valid bugs
- It is ideal to increase coverage when time allows
- No tester can ever find all bugs
However, in reality:
Testing is always performed within assigned scope, responsibility, and time.
How This Assignment Is Evaluated
- You are evaluated on how well you execute the assigned work
- You are not penalized for finding more bugs
- You are not rewarded for testing beyond the assigned scope
This reflects real projects, where:
- Excellence within your responsibility matters more than uncontrolled breadth
- Testing beyond scope without alignment rarely increases value
- Clear communication of what was not tested is critical
Better testing means finding the right bugs in the right areas — not trying to test everything.
🤖 AI Usage Policy (IMPORTANT)
AI is a support tool, not a testing assistant.
✅ AI is ENCOURAGED for:
- Improving wording and clarity of bug reports
- Structuring and polishing QA reflections
- Organizing time-usage reports
- Improving readability and professionalism
❌ AI is NOT ALLOWED for:
- Suggesting what to test
- Generating test ideas or charters
- Designing test steps
- Analyzing system behavior
- Assisting during any testing activity
All testing decisions must come from you.
🔎 Phase 1: Free Exploratory Testing
⏳ Timebox: 8 Hours
Goal
- Understand the system
- Explore broadly
- Discover obvious and unexpected issues
Deliverables
- Minimum 5 bug reports
🎯 Phase 2: Charter-Based Exploratory Testing
⏳ Timebox: 4 Hours
What Is Charter-Based Testing?
Charter-based exploratory testing means:
Exploratory testing guided by a clear mission (charter).
A charter answers:
- What am I focusing on?
- Why is this area risky?
- Is my time well spent here?
You still explore freely — but with intention.
How Phase 2 Works
- Choose 2 charters
- Spend 2 hours per charter
- Tag each bug with its charter
Available Charters (Choose Any 2)
- Search & filtering behavior
- Car detail page logic
- Rating / voting functionality
- User registration & login
- Error handling & validations
- Navigation & data consistency
- Browser compatibility
Deliverables
- 3–6 additional bug reports
🧠 Phase 3: Thinking Like QA (REQUIRED)
⏳ Timebox: 2 Hours
Goal
Evaluate risk, coverage, and confidence — not just bugs.
Required Written Analysis (1–2 Pages)
You must answer all sections:
1️⃣ Top 5 Highest-Risk Bugs
- Why each bug is risky
- User impact
- Business or trust impact
2️⃣ Coverage Gaps
- What you did not test
- Why those areas were not covered
3️⃣ QA Judgment
- If the product launches tomorrow:
- What worries you most?
- What must be tested next?
⭐ Honest Self-Critique (BONUS SCORE)
Honest feedback about what you did NOT do well will result in PLUS SCORE.
You are encouraged to:
- Admit weak areas
- Acknowledge poor time allocation
- Identify shallow coverage or wrong assumptions
There is no penalty for admitting flaws.
There is a penalty for pretending everything was perfect.
📝 Bug Reporting Format (MANDATORY)
Each bug must include:
- Title
- Steps to Reproduce
- Expected Result
- Actual Result
- Severity (Low / Medium / High)
- Evidence
- Phase
- Charter (if Phase 2)
🕒 REQUIRED: Time Usage Overview & Reflection
Provide an honest estimate of how you spent your time.
Example Time Usage Table
| Phase | Activity | Estimated Time |
|---|---|---|
| Phase 1 | Broad exploration | 3h |
| Phase 1 | Edge cases & misuse | 2h |
| Phase 1 | Bug documentation | 3h |
| Phase 2 | Charter: Search | 2h |
| Phase 2 | Charter: Login | 2h |
| Phase 3 | QA reflection | 2h |
Reflection Questions
- Where did you waste time?
- Where did you under-invest time?
- What would you change next time?
📊 Evaluation Criteria
| Area | Focus |
|---|---|
| Exploration | Coverage & curiosity |
| Bug Quality | Clarity & impact |
| Focus | Charter effectiveness |
| QA Thinking | Risk awareness |
| Time Management | Honesty & reflection |
| Self-Critique | Transparency & maturity |
| Communication | Professional writing |
🌱 Core Lesson of This Module
QA is not about finding everything.
QA is about understanding risk and communicating confidence.
This module rewards:
- Judgment over grind
- Integrity over ego
- Reflection over volume