Professional – Multilingual – Service Oriented
Automate the Process
Deliver Quality
Agenda
 Presenter
 Quality & QA
 DEV Lifecycle
 Cost of quality
 Technical debt
 Issues
 Git, CI, Sonar, Se
 Botto...
Ady Beleanu
• Quality inquisitor
• 10 years in field of QC & QA
• Managed projects & teams
• Coached & inspired testers
• ...
Quality
Quality (ISO) = The totality of the characteristics of an entity
that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or im...
Quality Perspectives
External
 Valuable for users
 Internal
 Right design
 Simple to understand
 Extendable
 Mainta...
Quality Focus – Final product
 Added value
 Attention to detail
 Process behind the product  Innovation & Pioneering
...
Quality Assurance – The Pieces
For the system to work, each piece has to be:
 Perfect
 Easily integrated
 Tested
 Reus...
Key Success Criteria
THE BIBLE of the project
• Business case
• Architecture
• Requirements
• Quality strategy
• Project S...
Costs
• Lack of Quality Management
– Plan the quality
– Perform QA
– Perform QC
• Technical DEBT
• 1 External Failure Cost...
Costof Quality
$59.5 Billion Cost Software Errors in U.S. Economy / Year
estimated $22.2 billion,
could be prevented
 imp...
Technical DEBTf Quality
http://otja.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/what-am-i-
thinking-about-visualising-your-technical-debt/
GO...
SDLC
Common Repository
http://otja.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/what-am-i-
thinking-about-visualising-your-technical-debt/
• Tracea...
Lack of integration
http://otja.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/what-am-i-thinking-about-visualising-your-technical-debt/
Issues
...
The KEY to sustainable quality
REUSE of Resources
• Planning
• Analysis
• Design
• Development
• Testing
• Deployment
http...
A framework example
Repository
Source Code Management (SCM)
tool
Version Control System (VCS)
Continuous Integration
Automated builds
Static code analysis
Code coverage
reports
Trigger
Code aggregator
Central p...
Problem no.1 – Code Quality
http://www.bonkersworld.net/code-reviews/
Poor unit test coverage Complexity for integration t...
Why code review?
Find bugs early / Fix cheap
Coding standards compliance
Sharing knowledge
Consistent design and
imple...
Code Quality Measurement Needed !!!
… but, WHATto measure?
Context – project done with & without code review:
 10k LOC,
 10eng,
 3month project
 Measured # of bugs found by QA T...
Code Review – Use Case
Code Review – Use Case
Code Review - trend & numbers
2012 study (VDC Research)
• 17.6% software engineers surveyed currently use automated tools ...
Cost in SDLC
Code needs Continuous Inspection
code violations
code improvements
build stability
Continuous Inspection with SonarQube
7 Deadly Sins of source code
 Duplications
 Bad distribution of complexity
 Spaghe...
Integrate with SonarQube
SonarQube – look & feel
SonarQube – look & feel
SonarQube – look & feel
SonarQube – Technical DEBT Measurement
The so called Testing phase
Functional
/ UI
API / Services
Integration
Unit
Automated Test Tool
https://saucelabs.com/tutorials/php/se2/img/Diagram-Selenium.png
Reporting
~20 - 40%of project lifecycle time  REPORTING
Simplified…
Bottom Line
http://mycartoonthing.com/wp-content/uploads/image/business/Business%20bottom%20line%20cartoon.jpg
Bottom Line
Harvest
Foresee risks
Automate & Reuse
Organize process
Prevent
Build framework
Think & Understand
Rtc2014 automate the_process_deliver_quality_ady_beleanu
Rtc2014 automate the_process_deliver_quality_ady_beleanu
Rtc2014 automate the_process_deliver_quality_ady_beleanu
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Rtc2014 automate the_process_deliver_quality_ady_beleanu

269 views
223 views

Published on

Presented at Romanian Testing Conference 2014 - Cluj-Napoca, Romania

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
269
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Rtc2014 automate the_process_deliver_quality_ady_beleanu

  1. 1. Professional – Multilingual – Service Oriented Automate the Process Deliver Quality
  2. 2. Agenda  Presenter  Quality & QA  DEV Lifecycle  Cost of quality  Technical debt  Issues  Git, CI, Sonar, Se  Bottom line  Thanks
  3. 3. Ady Beleanu • Quality inquisitor • 10 years in field of QC & QA • Managed projects & teams • Coached & inspired testers • https://www.linkedin.com/in/adybeleanu
  4. 4. Quality Quality (ISO) = The totality of the characteristics of an entity that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs “= ability of product to be able to satisfy end users” The concept of making products fit for a purpose. Minimising defects and problems. You - feel it!
  5. 5. Quality Perspectives External  Valuable for users  Internal  Right design  Simple to understand  Extendable  Maintainable
  6. 6. Quality Focus – Final product  Added value  Attention to detail  Process behind the product  Innovation & Pioneering  Both – from point A to point B  the difference - usability, safety, comfort, reliability, and so on vs.
  7. 7. Quality Assurance – The Pieces For the system to work, each piece has to be:  Perfect  Easily integrated  Tested  Reusable vs.
  8. 8. Key Success Criteria THE BIBLE of the project • Business case • Architecture • Requirements • Quality strategy • Project Synchronization “Establishing your Automation Development Lifecycle”, Galen
  9. 9. Costs • Lack of Quality Management – Plan the quality – Perform QA – Perform QC • Technical DEBT • 1 External Failure Cost • 2 Internal Failure Cost • 3 Inspection (Appraisal) Cost • 4 Prevention Cost
  10. 10. Costof Quality $59.5 Billion Cost Software Errors in U.S. Economy / Year estimated $22.2 billion, could be prevented  improved testing infrastructure  eliminate defects earlier / efficiently *NIST Assessment
  11. 11. Technical DEBTf Quality http://otja.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/what-am-i- thinking-about-visualising-your-technical-debt/ GOOD code vs. BAD code or Doing it RIGHT & LONGER / QUICK & DIRTY
  12. 12. SDLC
  13. 13. Common Repository http://otja.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/what-am-i- thinking-about-visualising-your-technical-debt/ • Traceability • Visibility • Versioning • Best practices • Non-Latency • Concurrency CHAOS
  14. 14. Lack of integration http://otja.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/what-am-i-thinking-about-visualising-your-technical-debt/ Issues • Broken code check-in • Uncertainty • Missing code files • Small mistakes – BIG issues • Missing integration
  15. 15. The KEY to sustainable quality REUSE of Resources • Planning • Analysis • Design • Development • Testing • Deployment http://www.itcinfotech.com
  16. 16. A framework example
  17. 17. Repository Source Code Management (SCM) tool Version Control System (VCS)
  18. 18. Continuous Integration Automated builds Static code analysis Code coverage reports Trigger Code aggregator Central point for quality
  19. 19. Problem no.1 – Code Quality http://www.bonkersworld.net/code-reviews/ Poor unit test coverage Complexity for integration test No full regression (100%) Tight couplings
  20. 20. Why code review? Find bugs early / Fix cheap Coding standards compliance Sharing knowledge Consistent design and implementation Higher software security Team cohesion Confidence of stakeholders
  21. 21. Code Quality Measurement Needed !!! … but, WHATto measure?
  22. 22. Context – project done with & without code review:  10k LOC,  10eng,  3month project  Measured # of bugs found by QA Team in the next 6 months The result: Code review would have saved half the cost of fixing the bugs. Plus, they would have found 162 additional bugs. Code Review – Case Study
  23. 23. Code Review – Use Case
  24. 24. Code Review – Use Case
  25. 25. Code Review - trend & numbers 2012 study (VDC Research) • 17.6% software engineers surveyed currently use automated tools for CR • 23.7% expect to use them within 2 years. Capers Jones' - 12,000 SW dev projects: - 60-65% - The latent defect discovery rate of formal inspection. - < 50% - For informal inspection. - 30% - The latent defect discovery rate for most forms of testing. 150 lines of code per hour - Typical code review rates. Code reviews => ~85% defect removal rate (avg. rate of about 65%) 75% of CR defects  evolvability rather than functionality suitable for long product / system life cycles => increase of Technical DEBT.
  26. 26. Cost in SDLC
  27. 27. Code needs Continuous Inspection code violations code improvements build stability
  28. 28. Continuous Inspection with SonarQube 7 Deadly Sins of source code  Duplications  Bad distribution of complexity  Spaghetti Design  Lack of unit tests  No coding standards  Potential bugs  Not enough / too many comments
  29. 29. Integrate with SonarQube
  30. 30. SonarQube – look & feel
  31. 31. SonarQube – look & feel
  32. 32. SonarQube – look & feel
  33. 33. SonarQube – Technical DEBT Measurement
  34. 34. The so called Testing phase Functional / UI API / Services Integration Unit
  35. 35. Automated Test Tool https://saucelabs.com/tutorials/php/se2/img/Diagram-Selenium.png
  36. 36. Reporting ~20 - 40%of project lifecycle time  REPORTING
  37. 37. Simplified…
  38. 38. Bottom Line http://mycartoonthing.com/wp-content/uploads/image/business/Business%20bottom%20line%20cartoon.jpg
  39. 39. Bottom Line Harvest Foresee risks Automate & Reuse Organize process Prevent Build framework Think & Understand

×