Archives

Archives / 2018 / October
  • Fixing the false positive problem

    With all the quality automation that is your responsibility, a run of a check failed. It is your job to check it out.

    After 30 minutes or so of investigation, you find that the failure happened … more

  • To find a better solution, look to the bigger picture

    Last week I contributed at the annual global patterns conference, aka Pattern Languages of Problems or PLoP.

    The site is here https://www.hillside.net/plop/2018/

    We met this year in Portland Oregon. … more

  • No respect for QA … how to fix that!

    Three years ago, I overhead this in the hallway at a STARWEST conference:

    “I want to know why the QA team wasn’t represented in the go-no-go meeting this morning!”

    I was disappointed, but not … more

  • Don’t pick up Maslow’s Hammer

    There are some interesting memes bouncing around the software quality space.

    For example, the idea that analytics obviates verification; some people think that with good analytics, there’s no need … more

  • Automation to test IoT systems across tiers

    This https://www.statista.com/statistics/471264/iot-number-of-connected-devices-worldwide/ page estimates the number of internet-connected devices worldwide from 2015 to 2025.

    Suppose you’re working … more

  • Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet

    Thanks to the late Stephen Hawking for that wonderful quote (the title for this post).

    For software quality with automation, I take his quote to prompt the big-picture questions:

    How does this work? … more

  • BDD is limited in what it can do for the team

    Behavioral-Driven Development (BDD) requires the team to

    develop a “ubiquitous language” that describes the SUT in terms that anybody in the business can understand

    Create a custom language (e.g. … more

  • The “Four-Phase Test” Pattern is obsolete

    In 2007, Gerard Meszaros published his tome “xUnit Test Patterns.” It is an impressive, well-done, scholarly work of cartography. Gerard delivered to the software quality community a definitive work … more

  • Log Statements in Automated Checks are Not Optimal

    Near the historical origins of the hardware-software interface, and early in the history of software services, logs were born: discrete packets of information with time stamps and some quanta of … more

  • Collect and present ALL the functional quality data

    The basis for the MetaAutomation pattern language, and the reason for it, is at the core quite simple.

    Everybody on the team (or, almost everybody) does manual or exploratory testing with the SUT. … more

Sign up here for emails with bites of wisdom on quality automation and MetaAutomation

Recent Blog Posts

  • The differences: Manual Test vs. quality automation

    In my last post I describe out the two kinds of automation that fit in the quality automation space.

    People who do quality automation (at least, the part of quality automation that drives and … more

  • The two halves of quality automation

    Quality automation is the domain (or problem space) of driving the SUT, measuring and recording data on SUT behavior and communicating that data to the business. I also use “quality automation” to … more

  • Fixing the false negative problem

    False negatives happen when these three things happen in order:

    Operations (ops) promotes the software to the next level, or ships it to end-users

    Someone (or, some automated process) discovers a … more

  • Fixing the false positive problem

    With all the quality automation that is your responsibility, a run of a check failed. It is your job to check it out.

    After 30 minutes or so of investigation, you find that the failure happened … more