The perceived value of testing is often related to how test teams believe — and promote — the idea that they “test for quality.” The reason I say that is because I maintain quality is value to someone whose opinion … Continue reading
Sometimes you’ll hear testers talk about how they “test for quality.” My problem with that phrase is that it’s a potentially dangerous one. It’s an even more dangerous expectation unless some ideas of what the phrase actually means are sorted … Continue reading
I’ve worked with lots of testers who often take on more work than they should because they have the idea that the work they are taking on is what testers should be doing. It’s often not a question of whether … Continue reading
In my post on Stories, Features, and Acceptance Tests I talked about a lot but I didn’t really cover the acceptance tests themselves. The tests are quite important. Keep in mind that the goal is to have specifications that are … Continue reading
If you’re a tester that works in an environment where your teams practice test-driven development (TDD), behavior-driven development (BDD), or some other variation that sounds really similar, you’ll quickly be learning that people toss around terms like “story”, “feature”, “acceptance … Continue reading
As a tester the bad news is that you’re not assuring quality. That’s also the good news. Despite the commonly used title of “Quality Assurance” for a testing team, you really can’t assure quality by testing. You can’t assure quality … Continue reading