enterprise agile quality open years 30 -...

AgileBill

Krebs

Enterprise

Open

Distributed

Years 30

Books 240

Certs 8

Badges 6

Agile ‘01

Agile3d Academy

Agile Quality

O, Rq, Pm, Qa, Ns, …

Agile Testing: A Practical Guide for Testers and Agile Teams

By Lisa Crispin and Janet Gregory

http://janetgregory.blogspot.com/

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

Color coded roles

BA, Test, Dev, PM

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

A Two Week Sprint

Stretch

Later

Releases

Sprint

Backlog

m t w t f

M T W T F Product

Demo

Process

Retro

Time

In Release

Product Backlog

Every day: • Standup at task board • Pair, unit test, refactor, review • Test, integrate, build, test

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

A User Story – Building Block

As an online shopper, I can ship to a friend

Ron Jefferies 3 ‘C’s

Card

Talk with Bob, my stakeholder

Test: No more, No Less: [x] Can retrieve friend’s address [ ] Can specify ship date and carrier [ ] Can track order

Conversation

Confirmation

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

BDD Triggers

Given

When

Then

And

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

BDD. Noun. “Behavioural Driven Development”

Given the user has no existing account

When they request to create a new account,

Then they are presented with a screen to enter a valid user name and valid password per rules as defined on our team wiki

And the information is saved upon submitting.

Example BDD Acceptance Test

7 (c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

From http://testobsessed.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/atddexample.pdf by Elisabeth Hendrickson

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

From http://testobsessed.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/atddexample.pdf by Elisabeth Hendrickson

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

CI QA

From http://testobsessed.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/atddexample.pdf by Elisabeth Hendrickson

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

The 5 minute cycle

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA IndustrialLogic.com

Acceptance Test

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

Fixtures

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

Column Action Row Calculate Set

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

A Sprint Calendar

Mon T W T Fri

Plan Do Do Do Do

Do Do Do Do Demo Retro

Do

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

( Refine )

Test

Dev

[ Pair, UT, Refactor ]

CI-Build

Meet

Daily

Extreme Quality

Traditional Extreme

Code Inspections Pair Programming

Unit Test Automated Unit Test

(Test Driven Development?)

Daily Builds Continuous Integration

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

Pairing

• Two people, one computer. Switch

• Save ½ the bugs for +15% labor

• Best benefits are intangible

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

Microsoft Research

• “Pair Programming – What’s in it for me” Andrew Begel, Nachiappan Nagappan , Microsoft Research http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/75108/esem-begel-2008.pdf

Pair programming is a practice in which two programmers work collaboratively at one computer on the same design, algorithm, or code. Prior research on pair programming has primarily focused on its evaluation in academic settings. There has been limited evidence on the use, problems and benefits, partner selection, and the general perceptions towards pair programming in industrial settings. In this paper we report on a longitudinal evaluation of pair programming at Microsoft Corporation. We find from the results of a survey sent to a randomly selected 10% of engineers at Microsoft that 22% pair program or have pair programmed in the past. Using qualitative analysis, we performed a large-scale card sort to group the various benefits and problems of pair programming. The biggest perceived benefits of pair programming were the introduction of fewer bugs, spreading code understanding, and producing overall higher quality code. The top problems were cost-efficiency, (work time) scheduling problems, and personality conflicts. Most engineers preferred a partner who had complementary skills to their own, who was flexible and had good communication skills.

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

Top 10 Benefits (%)

66 Fewer Bugs 42 Spreads Code Understanding 48 Higher Quality Code 42 Can Learn from Partner 30 Better Design 22 Constant Code Reviews 22 Two Heads are Better than One 17 Creativity and Brainstorming 14 Better Testing and Debugging 13 Improved Morale

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

Formal Inspection

• Different styles

• Save ½ the bugs for +15% labor

• Does it fit in a 3 day story?

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

Cost of change

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

a b c d e f g h i j

Series 1

Place these:

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

Customer bug

Inspection

Build

QA bug

Pairing

Unit Test

$$

Time ->

Patterns

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

Refactor these Smells I

Group Smells

Duplication Alternative classes, Duplicated code

Names Inconsistent, Type embedded, uncommunicative

Code issues Complicated boolean expression, Long method, long param list, magic number, null check, simulated inheritance

Class Too many instance variables, methods, or lines

Complexity Dead code, speculative generality

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

See Refactoring Workbook, by William Wake

Refactor these Smells II

Group Smells

Data Data class, data clump, primitive obsession, temporary field

Inheritance Inappropriate intimacy (subclass from), Lazy class, Refused Bequest

Responsibility Feature envy, inappropriate Intimacy (general), message chain,

Accommodating Change

Combinatorial explosion, divergent change, parallel inheritance hierarchies, shotgun surgery

Libraries Incomplete library

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

See Refactoring Workbook, by William Wake

Q A

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

Agile Testing Quadrants (Brian Marick)

Agile Testing Quadrants

Agile Testing Quadrants

Agile Testing Quadrants

Agile Testing Quadrants (Brian Marick)

Agile Testing Pyramid (Mike Cohn)

To Automate or not?

• Usability tests?

• Manual exploratory testing?

• Customer testing?

• Prototype code?

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

Engineer test code for the long term

• Design Patterns

• Inspect or Pair

• Readable code

• Refactor

• Object Orient reuse

• Design testability into your system

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

Test Data

• Should we mock out database calls?

• Should we we use real customer data?

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

Assemble this puzzle

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

Write acceptance test

Create a Story TDD

Refactor

Automate

Show the Tester

Exploratory Test

Customer Test

Dev

BA

QA

Cust

Acceptance Test – BDD Style

BDD – Behavioural Driven Development

Given the user has no existing account

When she requests to create a new account,

Then she is presented with a screen to enter a valid user name and valid password (rules defined on wiki)

And the information is saved upon submitting.

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

37

Continuous Integration (CI)

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

41

API Test Tools

◦ Fit, FitNesse, Cucumber, Robot Framework, Concordion, JBehave, Jubala, GUI Dancer

GUI Test Tools

◦ Selenium, Watir, Canoo WebTest, Twist, rSpec Unit Test Tools

◦ jUnit, nUnit, WatiN (UI), WatiJ, White Web Services

◦ CrossCheck, SoapUI, Ruby test::unit Misc.

◦ Dbfit

Examples of Automation Tools

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

42

Read more

via Janet Gregory – co-author of Agile Testing

• http://bit.ly/AgileTestTools

• softwareqatest.com

• opensourcetesting.org

• testingfaqs.org

• http://janetgregory.blogspot.com/

• http://lisacrispin.com/

• http://www.exampler.com/testing-com/agile/

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA

1 3 5 7 9

Standup 9 None "ABCs" weekly Stand Up Finish in under

15 minuites "ABC's" are

common

Task Board 1 None Have Organized Remote Limit WIP

Burndown 9 None Have Update In 1 Sigma Decide

Code Review 9 None Some Common Efficient Styles

Dev Unit Test 3 None Do Auto In Build Tandem

Automated QA Test 8 None Have Use Sufficient Measure Coverage

QA 8 None Chunks TETO (Test Eary,

Test Often) Exploratory "ility" testing

Build 1 None Automation "Daily" Auto Tests On demand &

Visible

Done Done Done 7 None Defined 50% met 80% met 95% met

Quality Advocate

Does Development

• Inspect or Pair?

• TDD or Automated Unit Test?

• Automate Acceptance Tests? (FIT)

• Use Continuous Integration?

(c) 2011 Agile Diimensions LLC CC BY SA