An evolution of the testing industry and testers

I’m not a leading thinker in the software testing field (Captain Obvious I know), but I do think about the field and, as often as possible, as deep as I can think about the trends that are influencing my field and how it impacts me moving forward. Looking at one’s field or practices analytically or theoretically can be helpful to help reign in some of the “pragmatic drift” that occurs as we deal with the realities that are thrust upon us day-after-day. I have been interested to gauge the field of those attending the Agile2015 conference about where they see the trends for software development and software testing, in particular, are currently and where they might be headed. Most likely this same question would produce different answers if put to people attending the CAST 2015 conference (possibly radically different answers in some cases).

I had the chance to attend an AMA (Ask Me Anything) style session with Elizabeth Hendrickson (twitter handle: @testobsessed) and asked her what she saw about the growth (what I really meant to say was change) of the field of testing over the next 5 years. Elizabeth’s answer, as I heard it, was that she didn’t see growth in the testing industry over the next five years. Maybe she meant for traditional testers, I’m not sure because we were running out of time, but that is a sobering thought for someone that identifies as a tester currently. If (and that might be a big if) the software industry is moving towards more combined engineering and probably fewer test specialists (or testers) overall or certainly as a ratio to the number of other developers or team members, what does that mean for testers working in agile environments and for our next jobs (because let’s be honest we should all be preparing for our next jobs, that’s just the way careers and the world of work, especially in technology, are today)?

What does that mean for job openings that people hire for? Does that mean they will be just hiring software developers in general? Is the future of agile teams to have no dedicated testers, but to have T-shaped people who have testing skills and any “testers” in the organization work with different teams to try and ramp up those types of skills?

Sometimes I feel like that is what people are saying without saying it, but I could be interpreting things wrong and I certainly don’t have a wide gauge of the industry beyond what I’m reading in blog posts and on twitter. I’m certain that there is plenty of manual script-based testing still happening and remnants that will hang on for a long time, but as these practices spread and entrench, it feels like the role or number of dedicated testers will shrink. When other industries experience a shift or change, some roles have to change, shrink or go away.

Frankly, I’m fine with change and I’m increasingly of the opinion that the role of testing moves further “left” into the development and design phases as we get better at “being” agile in our software development. It feels like that is where the industry and trends are moving (at least it is one probably evolutionary possibility for the field). What is hard to know for someone who isn’t seeing that style of development is to understand what that looks like, what new skills should be developed and then how to evangelize that to other team members and management when it also flies in the face of what they see as the traditional role of testing. I suppose that is why change is hard. The long term reality, however, is that not changing individually while facing a shift in industry is even harder.

*Note: These thoughts have been percolating for a while and represent my thinking and perceptions about what I think other people are saying (which might be incorrect, they are my perceptions after all). The session I attended at Agile2015 this afternoon really just spurred me into trying to put my thoughts into words to clarify both the questions I still have, as well as what my current thoughts are on the topic.

On the development of ideas in a team

(This is a post from my previous blog that I migrated over because I thought it was valuable and it’s a new home for my blog)

Implementing new ideas within a team or an organization is an interesting and challenging process. I am seeing the challenges of this process both at my team at work and in my role as a volunteer in a local youth organization. The context for my team at work is what changes to our tests and testing processes are we going to make to continue improving how and what we test. In regards to the youth group I’m involved with, it is how deeply will we adopt particular programs and processes and how should we plan the program for the youth that we run (including things like funding, length of the plan, parental and youth involvement, etc). Implementing great ideas (like the development of great software really) can be fraught with challenging details that can easily derail even the best of ideas. At work, for example, we just finished up a major release and are beginning to discuss/reflect on ways that we can improve our process for the future. One of the challenges I am finding is that I have ideas about what I would like to change, but the actual way in which the change is implemented in some ways seems like a harder challenge to crack. What processes are going to be created to actually effect the changes envisioned, how committed is the team to the change, do they capture the big picture vision of why this is being done and what the change is hoping to accomplish. These are important, but potentially challenging details. It takes both a will and good implementation to overcome the sheer inertia of how a team (or an individual) is accustomed to working. Great ideas, implemented or adopted poorly, are as likely to fail as poor ideas that are implemented poorly.

One particular challenge is how ideas are spread and adopted throughout a team or organization. Almost inevitably, in a team of any size, there will be some differences in opinions about particular ideas or changes. How these differences are addressed and resolved play a huge part in how well ideas and changes are spread and implemented and often times this part is just incredibly hard and slow. I’m left wondering how can teams appreciate, celebrate even, the differences in opinions and talents while still being capable of adapting and changing. This can be particularly difficult when some team members feel like the status quo is acceptable and feel no motivation to change.

That is the question I’m left pondering these days. How can I effectuate change I feel is necessary? I wouldn’t consider myself a “boat-rocker” by nature. I’m not particular fond of conflict and promoting change almost inevitably invites conflict or friction. Is some conflict inevitable in the development of the ideas? My experience leads me to believe that yes, it is inevitable. The greater the size, the more likely and diverse the conflict will probably be. So the companion question is, how can we manage conflict to help improve an idea without poisoning the relationships and morale that is necessary to make the changes or ideas successful.

I have more questions than answers at this point, both in regards to my youth group involvement and my team at work, but I felt like I needed to capture some of my thinking. We’ll see where things continue to develop. I have lots more thinking to do, but these general ideas seem clear for me as I try to move forward:

Favor action

People are as important as ideas

Embrace flexibility and experimentation with quick feedback loops (Are we asking ourselves frequently what experiments are we running this week, this sprint, this month, this year?)

Ask yourself implementation questions first, things like (What would this look like? What would other team members need to be successful? What conflicts to process or people might occur?)

Here are some quotes that seem especially relevant (though I would encourage viewing all of the quotes from the URL that I sourced the following two from, they are terrific!):

Follow effective action with quiet reflection. From the quiet reflection will come even more effective action.
Peter Drucker

Thinking is easy, acting is difficult, and to put one’s thoughts into action is the most difficult thing in the world.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


Reflections on BBST Foundations Workbook – Chapter/Lesson 1

(This post is from my previous blog, but introduces another blog series that I will be working on around the BBST Foundations book – having blog series help provide some framework to keep me blogging and generating additional ideas)
I just finished the first lesson/chapter in the BBST Foundations book (and more information/background about the book can be found here – I enjoyed it, especially the reflections at the end. Given that the project (BBST) has been around for a while, there were some questions I had while taking the course that I found the reflections help to clear up, like the reference to the AST dictionary project.  I also found the Testing Circus – February 2014 edition (BBST special) to provide some great background about the courses and their evolution. It really helped me understand why I ran into some of the issues in the AST Online courses that I did and the current connection (or lack of connection beyond use of materials) between Dr. Kaner and the AST BBST courses.
As far as the content of the first lesson goes, I found the treatment of the levels of testing to be valuable. It seems pretty fundamental I know, but I can get locked into a particular way of testing from time to time and this was a reminder that there are multiple levels at which an application can (and probably should) be tested, at times with different desired outcomes for those types of testing. One of the definitions that I think could have been edited and improved was around acceptance testing. I believe I understand where the content is coming from in relation to acceptance testing (customer-focused and executed vs. some agreed upon definition or set of tests that can be executed by a test team before the new software is “accepted), however the wide-spread adoption of agile processes, acceptance criteria for user stories and subsequent tests defined to help prove out that acceptance criteria are things that many (I believe most) will run into. I believe that this definition would benefit from some extra treatment that address this.
The issues related to quizzes and instruction were familiar to me (I used to teach in the K-12 space and have a degree in education) and I generally agree with what is explained about quizzes and using them to drive additional learning instead of merely assessment of a user’s progress in the course. Finally, the treatment of the concept of quality is very valuable. I believe many people generally consider that one of the core mission of testing activities are to help contribute to better quality in software, so understanding what quality means is important, as is the realization that the concept of quality might mean something different for someone else (like your manager or the person for whom we are making the software).

Webinar Review: Tips for Writing Better Charters for Exploratory Testing Sessions

by Michael D. Kelly

Webinar URL:
Webinar Summary
Michael’s webinar focuses on one of the more challenging parts of charter-based exploratory testing – writing effective charters to help drive the exploratory testing process. He defines exploratory testing as simultaneous learning, test design and test execution (a James Bach original I believe) and focuses his ideas within the Session-based Test Management (SBTM) framework. He scaffolds this idea with an outline of the elements of SBTM along with some explanation about each element to help provide some context for those who are unfamiliar with SBTM. Here the following elements he includes as a part of SBTM:
     -session notes
     -team prioritization – talk about risks
     -ad-hoc test documentation – document what comes up as useful to be documented
     -ad-hoc test automation – automate what you encounter as useful to automate
     -dynamic metrics and reporting
Michael goes on to talk about the three essential elements of a charter: Defining Risk, Coverage and Timeframe. The idea being that a charter should be written in a way so that a tester can understand the why I am testing this (Risk), the what I am testing (Coverage) and how long it needs to be tested for.
The remaining part of the webinar covers Michael’s ten suggestions for creating better charters:
List specific risk and coverage targets
Mnemonics for risk and coverage ideas
Risk and Coverage Knowledge Base
Compare missions (i.e. charters)
Charter Template
Charter for smaller sessions – then possibly use affinity maps to create larger sessions
Thumb Vote
Testing Polarities
Let Charter Emerge Over Time
Tracking Metrics
The Q&A session was also helpful in several areas, especially in talking further about metrics and session debriefs.
My Take
The webinar is first-rate, full of concrete ideas that are abstracted from specific practices enough so as to be easy to apply or adapt in a variety of work environments or teams. In many ways I feel like these are details that I was missing to help guide my exploratory testing efforts to be more effective. Michael covers his ten suggestions with good detail and I found most of the ideas to very helpful, even though some of the ideas would require a team to be able to implement (since they involve ways of comparing or filtering through charters to help determine the priority or acceptability of charters). Probably my favorite suggestion for creating better charters was the template idea that Michael shared for beginning to write effective charters. As with any template, in sharing the idea one runs the risk of it being considered “the” way to write a charter, which is obviously not the case here, there are many ways to structure or write a charter. For a tester who is a novice in charter-based exploratory testing, this structure can be really beneficial in jump-starting your use of charters and exploratory testing. As my English teachers liked to tell me, “Once you learn the rule well enough to never break it, you can have the freedom to break it whenever is needed.” That’s kind of how I feel about his template idea.
As a tester who wants to improve my skills, I found Michael’s discussion around debriefing sessions and metrics to be helpful as well. The metrics may be different than some of the traditional software testing metrics, but they are robust enough to help tell the “story” about the testing that you are doing, though I can imagine it takes some time to tell that story well and help the stakeholders involved to feel comfortable with them.
In summary, I cannot say enough good things about the webinar. It was simply full of practical ideas and useful explanations to help anyone improve the charters they write to help drive their exploratory testing efforts.
My Rating
Well Worth Watching

The Value of Surprise in Observation

I was reading a back issue of Better Software magazine recently and came across Lee Copeland’s article about surprise and observation. In his article he makes the case for the value of surprise and how we should not treat it as a dreaded result (which he admitted to doing at times as a manager). My favorite quote from the article is his statement:

“When we are surprised, it may be that we have simply been oblivious to events in our world.”

I found that to be a profound statement. Do we value surprise in our lives, including the types of surprises that come at us at times that make us feel uncomfortable? As Lee points out (and I have heard Scott Hanselman share in an excellent talk), it is vital that we ignore lots of information that we are faced with on a daily basis. Most of it is irrelevant, not worth even passing attention, and even valuable information exists in such a quantity that we have to ignore some of it. What we should not do, however, is ignore what surprises can teach us about what we have been ignoring. Lee shares some Weinberg wisdom (Jerry Weinberg that is) about avoiding the maintenance of an “oblivious culture” that willfully chooses to avoid observation about the world (and its people and processes) or ignores the information that does not match what is believed to be true. In other words, they are failing to capitalize on the value that the surprise could have revealed if it had not been ignored and tossed away.

So the next time you are surprised by something, at work, home or somewhere else consider using it as an opportunity to reflect on what you might be ignoring and what that surprise could help you learn. Some questions I came up with that could help with this (in software testing and elsewhere) are:

Ask yourself what is happening?
What does it mean?
Is it important? Why?

So next time, don’t just enjoy (or fear) the surprise you are faced with, but learn from it too.

Webinar Review: Co-Leadership – How being a leader is within your reach

By Bram Bronneberg

Part of my webinar review series on the EuroSTAR webinars

Webinar URL

Webinar Summary
Bram starts off by defining Co-leadership as shared leadership, horizontal leadership, collective leadership or distributed leadership. The concept here is that we all have a leadership role, even if it isn’t a formal role. He goes on to define what he saw as the three main responsibilities of a leader:
  • Inspire
  • Give Direction
  • Incite Change
He then proceeds to use Bob the tester, a fictional person, and follows his story through starting out as a new tester, who then experiences some challenges with his colleagues and falls “down the mountain”, with the mountain being a metaphor for one’s outlook or confidence in his team and his abilities. Bram defines four phases of this move down the mountain with confident and contributing being the attributes of those atop the mountain, moving downward one finds doubt, fault-finding followed by lack of caring as the element that characterizes being at the bottom of the mountain.
The final section of the webinar discuss Bob the tester’s experience and considers it from two perspectives. How Bob can avoid moving down the mountain and the responsibility that Bob (and other team members) have for helping other members of the team move up the mountain. He also makes an important point that those who help the team succeed, those who assist with the leading, cannot effectively do it from the bottom of the mountain.
Some of the steps or suggestions he provides including “patting people on the back” (i.e. complimenting or encouraging them), providing feedback when they look for it and confronting them when they have given up (he even mentioned insulting them to motivate them if needed, though I disagree with the characterization of insulting and would use “challenge” them instead). These specific ideas coincide with the big ideas of what leaders do (inspire, give direction, incite change).
He closed his portion of the webinar presentation (there was some Q&A afterwards) by highlighting some additional points for co-leadership to work among teams:
  • Know where you and your colleagues are on the mountain
  • Help each other back to the top
  • Step up to the plate personally
My Take
The concept of co-leadership was an interesting one to me and I was intrigued by the story he was going to use as the backdrop of his presentation (Bob the new tester) because I felt like it might pertain to my situation. Unfortunately, I found that using a fictional representation to drive the narrative and main ideas behind the webinar made it feel too theoretical. There were not enough real experiences to allow me to connect with and understand how his ideas occur or are implemented in “the real world”.
I still find the idea of shared leadership/responsibility to be valuable and the idea feels like it should be very applicable to agile teams especially. The part of this co-leadership idea that resonated most with me was the concept that I have a responsibility to know where I and my colleagues are on this “mountain” he speaks of. I think this idea (this responsibility really) is one that can be useful to me moving, however the rest on the webinar just did not have enough concrete examples to be as valuable as it could have been.
I have also decided to use the following scale to provide a final rating/summary of the webinar. The scale is composed of the following options: Well Worth Watching, Take it or Leave it, and Skip It. Well Worth Watching means I think a tester should definitely view the webinar. Take it or Leave it means that it might have some ideas you would find compelling, but I’m on the fence about it. Skip It means I think you can get more value out of your learning time by viewing another webinar.

My Rating: 
Skip It

EuroSTAR Webinar Review Series

(This was a blog entry from my previous software testing blog that I have migrated here. I’m going to be bringing that content over a little at a time but I am also going to use the idea in my original blog post and pick up the webinar review series to complement my blog series on the software testing learning mindmap. In that spirit, I have slightly edited the post from its original)

I look for learning opportunities wherever I can get them and I’m generally of the opinion that we can learn from a diverse group of people, including those we may not always agree with. That is one of the reasons I’m looking forward to doing a review series on the webinars available on EuroSTAR’s website as a series of blog posts over the next couple of months. They have 74 listed on the site, dating back to 2008, and seem to come in bunches throughout the year, with an occasional large gap of time between them. At first glance, they look to be a valuable resource for a software tester’s learning plan and cover a wider array of topics, ranging from process, technique, strategy, documentation, management and more. I’ve perused the list and culled it down, somewhat, to the 45 I’m going to highlight in my webinar review series.

The impetus behind this project was really Erik Brickarp‘s session at CAST 2013 (see his blog here) about his experience in developing as a tester over the past year. One of my big takeaways from his session was the need to have some concrete goals that I am committed to in order to focus and create momentum for my learning and improvement process as a tester. I’m still formulating some additional goals for the upcoming year and thinking about how to incorporate another of my takeaways from Erik’s session, which is to step outside of your comfort zone to accelerate the learning and improvement process, but this is my first step. This goes hand-in-hand with the goal of starting a testing blog I have had since I entered the software testing profession just under 2 years ago. I found my experience in the education profession enriched greatly by my blogging efforts and blogging regularly helped to encourage my passion for the profession, as well as helping me to articulate and reinforce the learning and ideas I had. I felt like blogging about my software testing experience would benefit similarly, but haven’t really been able to get going with it. I realized as I encountered the EuroSTAR webinar series and attended Erik’s session at CAST (as well as reading Michael Larsen‘s on-going blog series based on the 99 Things You Can Do to be a Better Tester, for which he needs a blog post that is a table of contents for the series), that this combination of things could be the motivation and structure I needed to get blogging again and make the learning experience from the EuroSTAR webinars more meaningful. So with that backstory, you can always view the posts in the series by clicking on the category to the right.

Session-based Test Management using Evernote

(This is a post from my previous testing blog that had a short run. It was published on Aug 21, 2013 originally, but I wanted to highlight some of my original blog content as a possible contrast even to some of my current thinking)

I find using Session-based Test Management (SBTM) principles to help focus my testing work to be helpful. It is a helpful way to organize my testing activities and produce a testing artifact that can explain how and what I was testing. I don’t do context-driven testing or exploratory testing particularly well I believe, but it is a skill I am working on developing. As with anything, to really improve at something, we need to do it thoughtfully and reflectively, and I find that SBTM helps me to do that. I have always found creating and storing the session sheets to be a management chore and something that got in the way of my eagerness to embrace this as a method for organizing my testing activities. I have tried several different tools, most of them found from Paul Carvalho’s excellent page about Lessons Learned in Session-based Test Management, and mostly used the original tool developed by James and Jon Bach. In the back of my mind, however, has always been this lingering idea that implementing the session sheets in Evernote made a lot of sense. One of the limitations in Evernote for doing this (and other cool things) has always been the way it handles (or really does not handle) templates (i.e. notes with consistent data needed in new notes).

Recently, I decided to get serious about solving the problem of templating in Evernote, in hope that it would reduce some of the management overhead of duplicating session sheets, remembering the date formatting on the note filename, what notebook to store it in so it could be separated by project, and other default values that need to be included in the text of the session document. My work in this case was aided greatly by Thought Asylum‘s posts about templating in Evernote. I found the following posts to be invaluable in setting up a template system in Evernote that worked for me:

I found the first three to be very helpful in getting my batch script setup. While the daily journal post might appear a little out of place, it shows how to dynamically create a template file that can be imported into Evernote. This is helpful for inserting a custom title (one that has the date in it for example), as well as date/time specific parts of the SBTM session sheet. The other evernote articles just helped me work through some batch scripting (Enscript is the command line interface into Evernote on Windows at least), as well as some of the querying needed to trigger a search in Evernote once the import is completed so that the newly created note from the template is selected and shows up in the Evernote application without requiring the user to go find it and select it. The PS menu third party add-on mentioned is also helpful for exposing those batch scripts in the system tray in a quick and easy way to access them.

Here is the batch script that I ended up with for a session sheet template. I have added some comments to the script in bold to try and explain what each section is doing. Once the script below is saved as a batch file, it can just be clicked on and ran and functions properly (provided you have update the sections that set the location for where some files are or where they will be created). You can follow the steps at one of the Thought Asylum blog posts for getting up and running with PS Menu. The end result of all of this is that it has facilitated creating session sheets at the click of a button, which has significant reduced some of the overhead for recording my testing activities in an organized way. While I have plenty of room for improvement (identifying someone to “debrief” with, improving my identification of appropriate charters, notetaking), I’m able to embed relevant files in the session sheet as needed. The next big (and I mean BIG) project would be to look at what is required to parse the session sheets inside of of a particular notebook to generate some of the TBS metrics that can help me to evaluate what I am spending my time on. The nice thing about keeping the session sheets in Evernote is that I get great support for search and sharing of notebooks if I can ever expand the SBTM practices to other testers in my group.

Batch Script


REM Calls the GET_TIMESTAMP function at the bottom of the script, which generates some variables needed as the script progresses, when the function is finished it returns to the line below the function call
set QueryString=created:%TimeStamp%

REM Sets the location of different tools (like ENScript.exe) and my evernote database, as well as the location of text files that contain some elements of the evernote template (which is an xml based document that Evernote uses to store its notes in)
set ENscriptLocation="C:Program Files (x86)EvernoteEvernoteENScript.exe"
set "C:UsershintbwAppDataLocalEvernoteEvernoteDatabaseshintbw.exb"
set FilePart1="D:Skydrive - BrettSkyDriveDocumentsEvernote Templatessession-template-part-1.txt"
set FilePart2="D:Skydrive - BrettSkyDriveDocumentsEvernote Templatessession-template-part-2.txt"
set FilePart3="D:Skydrive - BrettSkyDriveDocumentsEvernote Templatessession-template-part-3.txt"

REM Sets the location for the temporary .enex file that is created for import into Evernote
set WorkingFile="D:Skydrive - BrettSkyDriveDocumentsEvernote Templatestemplate1.enex"

REM Sets the default notebook to import the template into, some alternatives to the script can include passing in a parameter when the batch script is called that would override this variable
set DefaultNotebook="Sessions-ProjectName"

REM Build the template file by inserting each part of the XML document. Note the two echo statements which are inserting the custom date data that I needed in different sections of my session sheet
type %FilePart1% > %WorkingFile%
echo %NoteTitle% >> %WorkingFile%
type %FilePart2% >> %WorkingFile%
echo %StartTime% >> %WorkingFile%
type %FilePart3% >> %WorkingFile%

REM Sets the query string that will be used to cause Evernote to display the note after it is created from the template
set QueryString=notebook:%DefaultNotebook% %QueryString%

REM This imports a new note based on the template file created and places it in the default notebook that was specified
%ENscriptLocation% importNotes /s %WorkingFile% /n %DefaultNotebook% /d %EvernoteDatabaseLocation%

REM This command causes the Evernote application to show any notes created after this batch script is run, which generally will be just the note that you created above
%ENscriptLocation% showNotes /q "%QueryString%" /d %EvernoteDatabaseLocation%

REM This section deletes any of the variables that were set, including, most importantly, the temporary working file that had been created on the file system
del %WorkingFile%
set ENscriptLocation=
set EvernoteDatabaseLocation=
set JournalNotebook=
set FilePart1=
set FilePart2=
set FilePart3=
set WorkingFile=
goto :EOF

REM This section sets time and date values I need to build titles and add date related information in my template
for /f "tokens=1,2,3 delims=:" %%a in ("%time%") do ^
set hour=%%a& ^
set minute=%%b& ^
set second=%%c

for /f "tokens=1,2 delims=." %%a in ("%second%") do ^
set second=%%a& ^
set remainder=%%b

REM This section may not be needed for some locales, but it eliminates the weekday information on the front of the date information that was messing up the query to show the note in Evernote after importing the template
for /f "tokens=1,2 delims= " %%a in ("%date%") do ^
set weekday=%%a& ^
set usabledate=%%b for /f "tokens=1,2,3 delims=/" %%a in ("%usabledate%") do ^
set day=%%b& ^
set month=%%a& ^

set year=%%c

set NoteTitle="<title>et-bwh-%year%%month%%day%-</title>":
set TimeStamp=%year%%Month%%day%T%hour%%minute%%second%
set StartTime=%month%/%day%/%year% %hour%:%minute%
goto :EOF

My Software Testing Origin Story

This is admittedly a glorified About page blog post (and will probably actually function as my About page I think) but it is the first post in the Software Testing Learning Mindmap series and covers the Intro section on Dan Ashby’s mindmap.

Story of Becoming A Tester

I used the graphic above in a career presentation I gave to my son’s middle school (6th – 8th grade students) because I think it can aptly describe a career path that many take to become a software tester. While a degree in computer science or information systems is still a pretty common (perhaps most common) pathway, at my current employer 3 of the 5 testers have come into the profession from a pathway that doesn’t involve one of those degrees.

I graduated from college in History Teaching and began teaching middle school history in Arizona, USA. I spent 3 years me in the classroom (two of those as the computers teacher) including building a PHP application I ran from one of the Macs in my computer lab to help teachers with one of the hourly processes we had to do. After that I moved through educational technology positions at the district and state level before grant funding eliminated my role at the state department of education. At that point, I decided it was time to consider a career path change. I had done some website development and consulting throughout those ten years and began looking for an opportunity that would allow me to jump into software development full-time. A QA job with an organization I admired came available and so I applied and started my first job as a software tester.

Workplace Experiences

My first software testing job provided a great opportunity to immerse myself in software development and the software testing discipline. I jumped into learning all I could (and I had – and still have – a lot to learn), including with the support of my employer attending a conference each year (STARWest, CAST, and STPCon) as well as taking all of the BBST courses offered by the Association for Software Testing as well as a great (and extremely hard) Domain Testing class by Rebecca Fieldler and Dr. Cem Kaner. I became familiar with the different “schools” of testing and felt like much of my learning and experience aligned me more with the Context-Driven School of testing. The two teams of developers I supported operated semi-Agile’ly’ and we weren’t doing much in the way of unit or integration testing, so I did much of my work as manual testing (yes I realize the “controversy” around that term) of our applications. I dabbled in Coded UI tests since our technology was .NET thick clients, but found them brittle and difficult to develop for our complex apps. I managed much of my work using session-based test management exploratory testing (more on that later) though I wished we had more testing layers so I could focus on more detailed and complex user scenarios than the basic functionality I was “checking”.

After about three years, I began looking for some more opportunities to learn and grow and joined a healthcare IT/data startup. Over the last nearly two years, I have wrestled with some data warehouse testing issues, web testing as well as continuing to test thick client apps. I have had opportunities to explore the value of layered testing from unit on up through acceptance tests and how to mitigate risks and gather information by testing at the layer closest to where the risk of failure exists. I have also begun learning about testing in a continuous delivery/deployment release cycle and the challenges that presents (regression testing in any way but automated is impractical) and the role that exploratory testing plays in that process. We are currently very much in a DevOps-type of transition and I’m loving the new testing challenges and opportunities that it is bringing, especially in spreading effective testing across teams/roles so we can confidently deploy our products at any time (at least that’s the idea).

I know that is more background than anything, but these are the experiences and pathway that has brought me where I am today in testing and it’s been a fun journey that has challenged me (and continues to do so). Next post is about some more meaty stuff, What is testing? – a topic which can include some “fighting” words depending on who you are talking to and one that certainly reveals a lot about someone involved in software development.

Software Testing Learning MindMap

Wow, this week flew by! I’ve had this post on the back-burner since late last week but just haven’t been able to get it out the door. I attended a webinar hosted by the Software Testing Club recently called How I Interview Testers that was given by Dan Ashby. It was excellent and you can view the webinar at the Dojo or view some of the questions Dan answered after the webinar (including one that I asked about interviewing testers completely new to the profession – yay!). (As a sidenote, the Ministry of Testing is pretty awesome and I love the different things they have going on – someday I hope to attend a TestBash, probably Philadelphia because it is on “this side of the pond”, but one in Manchester or Brighton would be even more cool).

Back to Dan’s webinar. He posted a mind map (see the image at the top of this article – credit is all his – check out the links above for more info on the webinar) that showed how his interviews tended to flow and the types of topics that he would ask a candidate about,as well as how he grouped them together. It looks like a great guide for interviewing testers, but I think it could also help guide a tester in identifying different topics to learn about and incorporate into their own testing efforts.

The map just resonated with me as a great place to start talking about testing. As a result I decided to use it for a series of blog posts to kick things off here at Technophile Tester and it give me an opportunity to share my thinking about those topics (and have my thoughts challenged and refined so I can improve them 🙂 ). Some of Dan’s sections obviously allow for some deeper exploration and more blog posts than others, but I’m looking forward to diving into discussing testing. So please consider this post as the table of contents to my first blog series (ever) – What Do You Know About Software Testing? (WDYKAST). Please see the category link to the right to get a current list of the posts in the series.