Wherein I reflect on when Test Driven Development is testing and when it is not by observing my own state of mind during a bit of hobby coding. Your mileage my vary. #softwaretesting #softwaredevelopment #testing
Wayne Roseberry’s Post
More Relevant Posts
-
You know how writing code is sometimes more difficult than you thought it would be? The same problem applies to assembling patio furniture.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
"The plumber is here to fix the customer's plumbing as frequently as possible." "The doctor is here to give the patient medication as frequently as possible." "The car mechanic is here to fix the customer's car as frequently as possible." Imagine if any one of the professions above told you the customer that their relationship with you was based on them doing work for you as frequently as possible. A person with even the smallest amount of wisdom would say "No, your relationship with me is I pay you to do the work I need and want when I need and want it." Such a person would recognize at that moment they are talking to somebody running a scam, trying to convince them to repeatedly buy something they don't need at a time they don't need it. The next time somebody comes to you with their product team, or their consulting advice, and tells you "The purpose of a software team is to deliver value to the customer as frequently as possible," look them straight in the eye and say "No, the purpose of a software team is to deliver the value the customer needs and wants when the customer needs and wants it." #softwaretesting #softwaredevelopment #continuousdelivery #continuousintegration #cicd #agile
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Non testing related lesson (re-)learned today: rocks increase in weight exponentially as their dimensions increase. I guess I could make an analogy to combination testing, but right now all I am thinking about are my arms and back. Errata: someone in the comments corrected me, not exponential but instead "polynomial with degree of three." Still hurts the back.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
The reason "false positive" means "a failure that wasn't really a failure" and "false negative" means "a passing result that should have been a failure" is because much of software testing is based on the practices used in scientific observation. Scientific practice is to establish a hypothesis, determine which outcomes would disprove the hypothesis, and run experiment which checks for those conditions. A positive means you observed one of the disproving outcomes, a negative means you failed to observe one of the disproving outcomes. This practice is based on fundamental principles regarding the limits of what it means to know and observe something. Testing terminology captures this principle. It is this way in science, medical testing, and software testing because these are disciplines where truth is the entire purpose of the activity, where knowing the limits of what can be known, and how easy it is to be wrong, is critical.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Sometimes we need silly distractions not related to work. I have had this idea in the back of my mind to create a dark ride on the computer, and just today I figured out how to make a camera follow a 3d path in Unity. Some simple drawings, stick them to plane objects, and I have the equivalent of the cheesy wooden cutouts you see on carnival rides.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Some are predicting the death of search. I feel differently. I am predicting the rise, or perhaps return of, curation. For decades, the scale of web-crawling, indexing, and searching has nearly put curated content in the grave. No panel of humans evaluating and proofing and putting a stamp of approval on a set of content will ever compete with the volume and speed of a bank of servers crawling whatever content was out there. So long as the engines returned what was collectively understood as "good enough" results at top, human selected content could not compete. Now the engines are making the content faster than the humans can make it. Accelerated creation combined with accelerated indexing, and we realize how much the search engines were leaning on at least some proportion of that content creation was done by people who were actually thinking about the content, and with ongoing tuning of the search engine parameters were able to keep the content toward the top that people generally preferred. It turns out when both sides are machines, the output erodes very quickly. I predict we are going to see some kind of "stamp of approval" model. High valued sources. A "who do you trust" model. I am hesitant to predict more beyond that, because I believe this is one of those chaotic moments where a small change has big ripples. It is also the kind of situation that sees new players when existing players have models that cannot easily adapt to the new paradigm. https://lnkd.in/gujqfv-E
Developers seethe as Google surfaces buggy AI-written code
theregister.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
There is a lot of debate among artists about generative AI. I find it useful for reference models. The image on the left was generated by Bing Image Creator with the prompt "photograph of a woman holding clipboard, pencil, holding eraser of pencil to her chin in contemplation." The cartoon is my own drawing. I wasn't sure how to position the pencil, hands, arms, clipboard, and of course I used the reference image as a guide. The rest of the image is of course different, but having a source of reference material derived from whatever prompt I give it is useful. I find these sorts of use cases are missed in the discussion. Legitimately helpful tools that do not at all detract from the human creative process. I feel the same applies to testing and development. Lots of focus on "replacement" scenarios, a lot less focus on how to make it useful, make people better at what they do.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Posts that are of the form: "I did <this>, and it got me the <job, promotion, other thing>..." often come with an implied or explicitly stated "...therefore if you don't have one yet, you are someone weak or not trying hard enough or being unrealistic or <some other kind of character or moral flaw>" For example: "I got a job because I was realistic about the market expectations." Implied message "If you still haven't found a job, it is probably because you are being unrealistic." Maybe that person who got a job and thousands of others who did not all were competing for the ONE open job at the same rate and level, and that one person who got it was being not one iota "more realistic." They were just the one who out of thousands of others got the job. But they feel smarter and more important if believe it was because they knew or did something nobody else did and they share it with the world. It is helpful to remind ourselves of survivorship bias. This bias is one that causes us to hyperfocus on examples of something working, looking for attributes, conditions, or behaviors that signal either guaranteed success or guaranteed failure, ignoring attributes, conditions, or behaviors that were present in examples where something did not succeed which may be more important to know or understand.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Does anybody else hate it when you the repro condition for a bug MIGHT mean changing which monitor you are connected to (no, really, it might), which means you have to crawl around under your desk and figure out which cables go where? #softwaretesting
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
A recent article and video I created got a "Not repro" response back from the creator of the tool I was testing. They tried same thing, multiple times, multiple platforms. The person in question took time out of a trip to check it out, so you have to give them respect for looking at it. I believe this is going to be the basis for my next piece of testing content. Open confession, "Not Repro" bugs are intimidating. It means that there is some variable that did not get captured or conveyed between what you told the other person about the bug. The challenge is more difficult than just conveying the repro steps that worked for you. Now the steps have to account for the difference between what you experienced and what the other person experiences. There is a popular flavor of joke about the war between developers and testers, and "Not repro" is one of the classics in that canon. I get the joke, get the humor of it, and laugh when the form the joke takes is clever. But my true feeling about the topic is a sense of obligation to help, and most of the time developers I work with are genuinely curious and want to understand what is going on. Yes, I have worked with developers that are immature and unreasonable about it, and I have my own ways of politely but demonstrably training them out of that behavior, but it is the exception in what is normally a partnership of professionalism. Right now, the bigger problem is convincing myself to take a look. I am always at least a little bit afraid I won't figure it out. This post might be me nudging myself not to let it slide. #softwaretesting #softwaredevelopment #worksonmymachine
To view or add a comment, sign in