What do people tend to think of when they hear “tester”? More specifically, what do they think a person called “tester” primarily does? Arguably, more often than not, you’re going to hear something like “a tester’s role is to find bugs” or “a tester helps surface issues.” As an approximation, that may be accurate. But it’s only a very rough approximation. And a dangerous one. So let’s talk about this.
As part of my attempt to continue my thinking on the topic of “tests” and “checks”, I’m revisiting what I talked about previously. I want to see if my thinking has changed and I want to set myself up for being willing to change my opinion. I don’t want to be one of the fundamentalists I wrote about. So let’s take another trip down the rabbit hole.
I believe there’s an interesting parallax effect that happens in conversations around testing and the implementation of testing ideas. This is an area I want to investigate a bit more so I’ll start off as I usually do: with my half-formed ideas as the basis for discussion, elaboration and possible refutation.
… but you may not be a tester. Or at least not a specialist tester. Here I’ll close out 2017 on this topic which will indicate some of my future direction in 2018.
Dan Ashby recently posted his views regarding a model for test strategies and heuristics. I really like the level of effort put into it, particularly because it was clearly distilled not just from thought but thought based on experience. Let’s talk about this.
I see so many people lately talking about the “death of manual testing.” Opinions obviously polarize on this but what I don’t see is testers engaging at all with why this perception is there. There is a form of indoctrination that happens across the industry. And testers, by and large, do nothing to combat it. Largely because they ignore where it’s coming from. Let’s talk about this a bit.
This is the last of a four part series (see parts 1, 2 and 3). The goal has been investigating whether specialist testers have a role in machine learning environments uniquely distinct from development roles in those same environments. These posts have been getting you up to speed on what that might look like. Here we finish off that journey.
This post continues on directly from the first and second parts. I covered a lot of material in those posts so I can’t easily recap it here so definitely read those before reading this one. Here we’ll dig more into how a tester actually tests in this context but also look at testing as a framing activity.
This post continues on directly from the first one in the series. We’ll take the CartPole example we started with and continue our journey into how testing — particularly that done by a specialist tester — intersects with the domains of data science and machine learning.
As a tester are you ready to work in environments that are based in or around data science and machine learning? What will you actually do in these environments? How will you interact with developers? How technical do you have to be? Is it all just automated testing? Or do we still have room for a human in there somewhere? Let’s dig into this a little bit by going through a scenario.
In a series of posts, I’ve talked about my Tapestry micro-framework and I tried to provide some of the rationale for its design choices. Providing that rationale meant providing a context for you to see it in action. This post will cap off the previous posts by digging into the code of Tapestry a bit and showing you how it works. I hope this is more relevant given that you’ve now seen it in action.
In the previous post I talked about communication patterns in terms of the micro-framework and tests. Here I’ll talk about the expressiveness of the tests themselves, showing how Tapestry supports the idea of a context.
In my last post on micro-frameworks, I got into the organizing principles of my Tapestry solution, by which the framework provides or supports a mechanism for the encapslation of and delegation to logic. Here I’m going to continue on that theme but with a focus on showing how the framework calls into the tests, rather than the reverse, and why I think this is a good design approach.
This is a continuation of my exploration into providing insight into micro-framework creation for automation, using my own Tapestry tool by way of example. The first post set the context and the second post focused on exposing an API. Here we’ll dig into exposing the organizing principle.