The general idea of a prison of representation is when you are locked into some means or method of being understood. This means of “being locked” can come from the past and, interestingly enough, from the future. I believe testing, … Continue reading
Author Archives: Jeff Nyman
As a specialist tester, one has been doing this since the early 1990s, it’s interesting to follow the contours of a notoriously fractious discipline. A discipline that is often populated by articulate but frustratingly argumentative practitioners. I say “frustratingly” not … Continue reading
We made it! The final post in the testability series. Here we bring the Benchmarker application to a reasonable close. Then we’ll take a bit of time to briefly cover the journey we’ve taken together here.
We’re continuing to build out our Benchmarker application, putting pressure on design as we go and keeping testability front-and-center as the quality attribute we want to provide, enhance, and maintain. Keep in mind we’re still slogging toward value, assuming that, … Continue reading
In the previous post we ended up creating tests with a context. And that context was allowing us to bridge the gap between correctness and value while also continuing to put focus on testability. We saw some warning signs along … Continue reading
Here we’ll continue on from the previous posts, getting more and more into aligning correctness of implementation with value for the business. We’re also going to look a bit at that line where the “unit test” starts to shade into … Continue reading
Here we’ll continue on from the first and second posts in this series. We made a good start with looking at the idea of correctness and attempting to encode our assumptions about that correctness in the form of code that … Continue reading
We’re going to continue on from the first post in this series by starting to build our Benchmarker application. In the first post we considered design pressure on value. Now we’re going to get into correctness. Value and correctness are … Continue reading
I talked before about whether testers should be developers and I also talked about the intersection of development and testing with a focus on testability. Here I want to make that intersection a little more actionable by considering an example … Continue reading
Part of achieving quality in software means treating testability as a primary quality attribute. Once you do that, you can then adapt your requirements and development styles from that point of view. Whether you call that “agile”, “lean”, “scrappy” or … Continue reading
Like most disciplines, testing has some so-called truisms that get passed around, many often being blindly accepted. The problem is often that our discipline requires a bit of nuance that the truisms — even if accurate — tend to gloss … Continue reading
I personally think the answer to my title question is an obvious “yes.” But I do see a lot of discussions about how the DevOps movement and/or culture has “killed” testing or has removed the need for testers. Let’s talk … Continue reading
There are groups of testers out there right now denying that the term “manual testing” — or the reality of the term — does exist or has ever existed. To me this is a bit of historical revisionism. Let’s talk … Continue reading
I talked before about tradition and dogma in the testing field. It’s often interesting to see how the idea that get passed off for wisdom in the testing world come about. Let’s take one example and break it down.