@maaretp @[email protected] by Maaret Pyhäjärvi Renegotiating Testing

@maaretp @[email protected] Testing serves a purpose: catch information we may be missing.

@maaretp @[email protected] 1250 programmatic tests run on average 20 times a day producing 25 000 test results … being 10% of testing done

@maaretp @[email protected]

@maaretp @[email protected] Test Team Test Mgr Manual Tester Automation Tester Specialist Tester Security / Performance Dev Team We used to have this… Queuing theory Failure demand Conways Law

@maaretp @[email protected] Team Team And we started having this… Power dynamics Renegotiation of work and expectations Renegotiation of identity Team member Product Owner Agile Coach Custo mer

@maaretp @[email protected] Stakeholders happy, even delighted –Quality Information Good Team’s Output –Quality Information Less than Good Team’s Output –Quality Information Results Gap Surprise! Results Gap on a Team that thinks Testers == Testing Pick up the pizza boxes… ”Find (some of) What Others May Have Missed”

@maaretp @[email protected] ANTIPATTERN in Framing Testing Exploratory Testing – the Noun Feature / Change Early Ideas of Testing Final Ideas of Testing Documented Tests Automated Tests Throwaway automated tests 20 22 0 22 22 100% ‘Agile’ Exploratory 20 2000 1000 20 = 18+2 1% 10 % 2 50% 80% RESULTS PLAN STEER

@maaretp @[email protected] Creativity requires time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDngw5R32WE&list=FLrTlIKuIS-LmRk-aAbcxTKg

@maaretp @[email protected] People Think Differently Source: Adapted from Bret Pettichord. 2000. Testers and Developers Think Differently Type A Type B Need of Mastery Focus of Modeling Focus of Thinking Tedium and Conflict Get up to speed quickly Generalist Domain knowledge Ignorance is important Thorough understanding Specialist Knowledge of product internals Expertise is important Model user behavior Focus on what can go wrong Focus on severity of problem Model system design Focus on how it can work Focus on interest of problem Practical Empirical: What is observed Sceptics Theoretical How it is designed Believers Tolerate tedium Comfortable with conflict Report problems Automate tedium Avoid conflict Understand problems

@maaretp @[email protected] Results worth Investment Usability Validation Verification Functionality Performance Security Reliability Risk (of these types of problems of relevance) Documentation Observations from #TestingDozen mentoring program for Contemporary Exploratory Testing

@maaretp @[email protected] Availability timeline Results Productive Generative Short term Long term Find and get fixed Executable docs Holding space Leaving co-owned automation behind Leaving better behind Improving *your* skills

@maaretp @[email protected] Discovery Delivery Production

@maaretp @[email protected] Testing Challenges, a paired modeling session result by Maaret Pyhäjärvi & Irja Straus, 9.12.2022

@maaretp @[email protected] Everyone can test

@maaretp @[email protected] Visualized with gource.io

@maaretp @[email protected] Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

@maaretp @[email protected] (Exploratory) Tester (Application) Programmer Test Automator / Programmer Testing is too important to be left for testers! …but also without testers.

@maaretp @[email protected] Testing = empirically inclined glue work Results in product; ways of working; capabilities

@maaretp @[email protected] 2020 2016 MIATPP Most Influential Agile Testing Professional Person #PayToSpeak #TechVoices #EnsembleTesting #EnsembleProgramming #StrongStylePairing #ExploratoryTesting #TestAutomation #ModernAgile #AwesomeTesters Maaret Pyhäjärvi (from Finland) Email: [email protected] Twitter: @maaretp Web: maaretp.com Blog: visible-quality.blogspot.fi (please connect with me through Twitter or LinkedIn) 2019 - 2022 https://exploratorytestingacademy.com Ohjelmistotestaus ry https://techvoices.org