Exploratory Testing in Real Conditions

Case Study: Buggy Car Marketplace Website

🌐 Test Target (IMPORTANT)

You will test the following public website:https://buggy.justtestit.org

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

1. Choose 2 charters

2. Spend 2 hours per charter

3. 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:

1. Title

2. Steps to Reproduce

3. Expected Result

4. Actual Result

5. Severity (Low / Medium / High)

6. Evidence

7. Phase

8. Charter (if Phase 2)

🕒 REQUIRED: Time Usage Overview & Reflection

Provide an honest estimate of how you spent your time.

Example Time Usage Table

Reflection Questions

• Where did you waste time?

• Where did you under-invest time?

• What would you change next time?

📊 Evaluation Criteria

🌱 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