Recently I engaged in a fun exercise with a test team wherein each of us had to answer the following question: How do I describe my role? It’s always interesting to me to see how people answer this, particularly in … Continue reading
Category Archives: Testing
I had two major series of thematic posts that I tried out this year: Modern Testing and Indefinito. The former was eminently focused on the tactical and the latter more on the strategic and perhaps even philosophical. In some ways … Continue reading
I wrote about how testing is like writing fiction. Testing can actually influence reading fiction as well. And reading fiction can be great practice for exploration in a lot of ways. I recently came across a good example of that.
In a previous post on test dogma and tradition, I talked about the famous “test pyramid” as an example of what people cling to as means of explanation. My concern there was that people often run too far with this … Continue reading
Awhile back I talked about what makes testing complicated. To be honest, that post is embarrassingly written as I look back on it. That said, I think there is some value in what it says. But to show how my … Continue reading
This post follows on from my code is a specification. I highly recommend reading that post to get the context because here I’m going to add a bit to the sample code from that post. This is being done to … Continue reading
Early on I talked about business needs becoming specs that become code. More recently, in my modern testing posts, I talked about the idea of production code being the specification of behavior. I wasn’t necessarily very descriptive in all of … Continue reading
It’s become tradition — with a bit of dogma — to point to triangles and quadrants to “explain” things about testing and development. A good case in point is presented in the article Agile Testing Automation. My goal is not … Continue reading
In previous posts about the integration / integrated distinction (see part 1 and part 2 of that series), I talked about how there is in fact a distinction and provided a little rationale behind why this distinction currently matters. So … Continue reading
In the previous post in this series, I talked about the counterargument of there being no distinction between integration and integrated. That post ended on a question. In this post, I will start from the presumption that there is a … Continue reading
Here I’ll talk about the difference between the terms integration and integrated when applied to testing. You may read that and say “Um, there is no difference, is there?” Well, let’s talk about it.
Here I’ll cap off my current round of “modern testing” posts by discussing a bit about the lucid approach that I’ve brought up along the way.
I’ve gone through a lot of posts on modern testing and I’m nearing the conclusion of my thoughts on this. (Or so we can hope, right?) Here I’ll recap a bit and then push forward.
In my previous post on modern testing and resilience, I indicated that testing and quality assurance spend a lot of their time, as disciplines, being in danger from their own practitioners. This is most often a problem when the disciplines … Continue reading