Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Agile North - The ICEBERG In Testing

976 views

Published on

Programmers testing their own code is not a new phenomenon, but with the emergence of agile development practices and code craftsmanship, there has been a move towards Programmers visibly taking more accountability for the code they write.

This is great news for those Testers used to being the gatekeepers to quality and answering the “why wasn’t this found in test?” question.

Programmers and Testers are now helping to improve the quality of code, but there is still one anti-pattern I have observed in teams in which both Programmers and Testers are testing the code – they are not actually working with each other when establishing a unified testing strategy.

This results in gaps in test coverage and / or unnecessarily duplicated testing.

This slide deck is from my Agile North presentation.where I presented my ICEBERG model for helping Programmers & Testers work more collaboratively. I also introduced another model I use for helping teams work together - Virginia Satir's Interaction Model.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

Agile North - The ICEBERG In Testing

  1. 1. The ICEBERG in Testing What’s going on beneath the surface?
  2. 2. A tale of 2 Icebergs My ICEBERG Model - Satir Interaction Model - Open Season -
  3. 3. All Models are wrong but some are useful George E.P. Box
  4. 4. Individuals and interactions over processes and tools Working software over comprehensive documentation Customer collaboration over contract negotiation Responding to change over following a plan Individuals and Interactions
  5. 5. Manual Image courtesy of Martin Fowler
  6. 6. Manual Testing / tasks not observed by Programmers Image courtesy of Martin Fowler
  7. 7. Manual Testing / tasks not observed by Testers The tip of the …. Image courtesy of Martin Fowler
  8. 8. Image courtesy of Martin Fowler TestApproach Manual
  9. 9. Information Conversation Early on Engagement Bake quality in Rapport Guts
  10. 10. Examples Automation taxi - Release notes -
  11. 11. I’m glad it’s not my side of the ship that’s sinking!
  12. 12. Satir Interaction Model Virginia Satir
  13. 13. Individuals and Interactions
  14. 14. Why found in wasn’t that test? bug
  15. 15. “Why wasn’t that bug found in test?” I was getting the blame for a bug found in production I felt the blame was unjustified so I was angry I said “We couldn’t have found that bug in test”
  16. 16. Intake We receive the wrong message I heard […] is that what you said?
  17. 17. We interpret the message incorrectly Meaning My interpretation is […] that what you meant?
  18. 18. Baggage & non- acceptance Is my feeling justified? Significance
  19. 19. We are not OK with our feelings Check feelings before responding Response
  20. 20. “Why wasn’t that bug found in test?” I was getting the blame for a bug found in production I felt the blame was unjustified so I was angry I said “We couldn’t have found that bug in test”
  21. 21. “Why wasn’t that bug found in test?” 3 interpretations Check my own feelings “How could we have caught that bug sooner?”
  22. 22. • Ask questions to improve your assumptions • 3 interpretations • Debugging here is tough • Don’t respond if not OK with feelings
  23. 23. An example for you to take away…
  24. 24. Done Finished Fini Terminado The End
  25. 25. Resources • ieee-stc.org/proceedings/2008/pdfs/JB1978b.pdf • stevenmsmith.com/AONW/Satir%20Interaction%20Model.pdf • dhemery.com/articles/untangling_communication/ • Practical Tools For Playing Well With Others : https://vimeo.com/78917211 • The Satir Model - Family Therapy & Beyond (book) • Managing Yourself & Others - Weinberg (book) • Becoming a Technical Leader - Weinberg (book)

×