I get asked this a lot. I’ve been doing some form of testing since the early 1990s and while my initial opportunities were provided by chance, my career was one of choice. Rather than say why I stay in testing, … Continue reading
Author Archives: Jeff Nyman
My contention is that specialist testers know enough to not use the term “non-functional.” And if they are in environments where this term is used, they seek to shift people from this vocabulary. This is one of the ways that … Continue reading
I’ve talked about interviewing testers before and I’ve talked specifically about hiring test specialists. Here I’m going to try to be a bit more concise, yet also a bit more expansive, about exactly what I think it means to look … Continue reading
I periodically find myself questioning the extent to which it makes sense to blog. I find it’s healthy to go through these periods of reflection and introspection. I often find it’s even healthier to expose these thoughts to others.
I recently talked about a focus on being able to test an AI before you trust an AI to test for you. Here I want to provide a bit more focus on how worth it this idea might be. But … Continue reading
A lot of testers are talking about how to use artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) to be the next biggest thing in the test tooling industry. Many are in what seem to be a lemming-like hurry to abdicate … Continue reading
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
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