I don't have any answers to this one (yet), but I've been thinking about categorising test cases a lot lately.
What normally happens when a new product is tested is that an architect creates a document with one particular view of the product, and the test cases are categorised around that view, with a couple of extra folders for things like test scenarios and smoke tests. From then on, each new release of the product has a similar structure for the test cases, and the end result is that the testers only think of the product in that structure, from that particular view.
To give an example, for a simple program like a calculator. You could categorise your test cases based on the input to the test cases, e.g. all test cases using the integer 2, or all test cases using floating point numbers. Alternatively, you could categorise your test cases based on user actions, e.g. entering data, selecting functions, requesting results, saving and recalling results. You could categorise based on components (interface, calculating engine), and probably many other ways that I'm not thinking of right now. But I expect that the most usual method is to categorise by functionality: addition, subtraction, logarithms, etc.
Which is all very well. Users probably see a calculator from that view themselves, so that is one advantage to it, and you can add categories that don't quite fit for more complicated calculations involving more than one function. Most testers will be able to look at those categories and come up with good test cases for each one, and within a short amount of time you'll find that the bugs reported are being categorised that way as well.
However, the other methods of categorisation have merit as well. You don't want to define separate test cases for saving and recalling addition results, and saving and recalling subtraction results, because the likelihood that there are any differences between the code used is low (one would hope, but shouldn't assume). On the other hand, you do want to have separate test cases for adding integers, negative numbers, floating point numbers etc, and multiplying the same.
In Mercury's TestDirector, this can be done my defining your test cases along functional lines in the Test Plan part of the application, and grouping the test cases along data lines in the Test Lab part of the application. Other test management tools have other solutions, although out of the tools that I have used, I like TestDirector's approach the best.
A calculator is a simple program, and also a very familiar one. We are used to thinking about it from different views, like the functional and data views. When the product is solving a much less familiar problem, however, it becomes more difficult to think about it from different views. I've worked on projects where even the architects don't think of the product from more than one view, although they have more of an understanding that there are different views and what those might be.
In these more complicated projects, one particular view becomes dominant to such an extent that others become too difficult to contemplate. I'm not sure why this is so, but I can think of two good examples to demonstrate it.
1) Colours. In kindergarten, with our poster paints (and, in my case, an ungodly amount of mess) we learnt that the primary colours are red, yellow, and blue. Later, in physics, we learnt that in fact the primary colours are red, green, and blue. With an amount of experience in graphic design, for instance, people will eventually be able to translate "I want a yellower red" into RGB terms, but I for one have to experiment to find out what that means. And I still think in poster paint terms like "yellower red".
There are additional views of colours, too. CYMK is another graphic design one, wavelength is one from physics, there is monochrome vs polychrome, but with the exception of the last one I think that your average "user" will naturally gravitate towards a red, yellow and blue view.
2) Books. Most bookshops will categorise their stock along a variant of these lines: Fiction / Non-fiction, Genre / Subject, Author's surname, Author's first name or initials.* Foyles bookshop in London, however, used to categorise books primarily by publisher, and the practice was described as anything from "eccentric" to "a nightmare". "Nobody" thought of books along publisher dimensions (publishers, authors, other industry specialists, and the owners of Foyles excepted), and people found that they couldn't think along those lines. Beyond that, people hadn't even considered that thinking about books from this view was an option.
And that is the crux of the problem. In each of my examples, there are people (or, users) who think about a particular topic along different lines from the majority. As testers, we should try and cater for their worldviews as well as the majority view, even if any bugs found from that view are ultimately left unfixed, as part of our aim to report on how well the product we are testing solves the business problem. But once we have our test cases divided from one particular viewpoint, we too are hampered in trying to think of them from a different view.
I have some ideas for how tools could give more help with solving this problem, but that entry will wait for another day.
* The vagaries of categorising along genre lines is a topic that gets much debate in science fiction and fantasy circles, usually to propose that all fiction books be sorted alphabetically by author (with the subtext that of course ghetto genres like romance or crime fiction be kept out of it), or very tiresome discussions about how popular book X is science fiction but is shelved with mainstream fiction due to snobbery. What is seldom considered is that genre is just one way of describing a work of fiction, almost all of which have some subjective element to them. I would like to categorise my books along the lines of "good fantasy about dragons with no elves", for instance, and see how many dimensions I need before I have one and only one book in each category. I don't have the time, but it is fun to think about.
22 January 2007
08 January 2007
Test Tools
(There has been news coverage recently on the number of blogs started and then abandoned - something like two million, if memory serves. Tied to the coverage, a new term was coined to describe people who start blogs and abandon them - cloggers. So, brought to you courtesy of a vague sense of guilt, a new entry.)
Very few of the tools I use for testing are specifically designed for testing. The honourable exceptions are defect reporting tools and test management software, but in both of those cases I would be (and have been) happy using a spreadsheet or some other general tool in certain circumstances.
The reason I use so few specialised testing tools is probably because most of my background has been on UNIX systems, where there are many powerful general tools that can be easily manipulated and strung together to produce tools for specific tasks. I also have a suspicion that specialised testing tools are hugely over-priced, and either solve problems that I don't need to solve or are so generalised that the effort required to configure them to do what I need to do is larger than that needed for me to write a tool myself in Perl. *
For the first time ever in my career, I am now working on a product that is installed onto a normal user PC running Windows. And I have found a wonderful, non-testing-specific tool that has found several bugs that I probably wouldn't have found without it, and helped diagnose countless others. Process Explorer, distributed free by what used to be sysinternals.com, is basically a souped up version of Task Manager, or a Windows GUI version of the top command. **
I can see what processes are running, when they started, and what started them. I can see CPU usage, RAM consumption, Virtual memory usage, and IO history for the whole system, or for each individual process. I can see what threads each process is running, and the stack trace on each of those threads.
I keep Process Explorer running on a second monitor, where I can see it out of the corner of my eye. New processes starting are coloured green, and processes terminating are coloured red (they can be changed, but I like the defaults), and this will catch my attention. I can see at a glance whether the amount of RAM has risen or fallen significantly, whether any particular process is using the CPU when it shouldn't be working, and basically where the activity is coming from.
But where it has proven most valuable is in noticing when processes haven't terminated when they should. Instead of finding these processes during a rare glance at Task Manager, when I have no idea when they started and what I was doing at the time, I will see it as it happens, and be able to investigate the bug while my previous actions are fresh in my mind.
And this feeds into something I believe about test case design and its value. I could have defined one test case (or several, or an infinity of test cases) that checked whether all processes terminated when they should have after executing various user scenarios. And I would have spent a few days working through those scenarios, driving myself half crazy with the tedium, and perhaps halfway through I would have noticed that I was running short on RAM, and I would start again to see which scenario was to blame, and a whole heap of time would have been taken up executing a test case that was better executed without being defined, while executing other test cases.
It isn't just with these kinds of tests, monitoring system behaviour, that I think leaving test cases initially undefined is a good idea, but that's a huge topic for another day.
* In fact, this is blatantly untrue. Open Source Testing has a lot of free resources listed, and although many of them don't solve my problems, some of them have proven useful and reduced my workload. If I can't overcome my prejudices, at least I can be aware of what they are.
** As implied, I have very little experience on Windows systems, and can just about navigate the file system in DOS. Although I tell this to anybody who listens, they seldom believe me. So while there may be DOS alternatives to do what I use Process Explorer to do, I didn't find information on them.
Very few of the tools I use for testing are specifically designed for testing. The honourable exceptions are defect reporting tools and test management software, but in both of those cases I would be (and have been) happy using a spreadsheet or some other general tool in certain circumstances.
The reason I use so few specialised testing tools is probably because most of my background has been on UNIX systems, where there are many powerful general tools that can be easily manipulated and strung together to produce tools for specific tasks. I also have a suspicion that specialised testing tools are hugely over-priced, and either solve problems that I don't need to solve or are so generalised that the effort required to configure them to do what I need to do is larger than that needed for me to write a tool myself in Perl. *
For the first time ever in my career, I am now working on a product that is installed onto a normal user PC running Windows. And I have found a wonderful, non-testing-specific tool that has found several bugs that I probably wouldn't have found without it, and helped diagnose countless others. Process Explorer, distributed free by what used to be sysinternals.com, is basically a souped up version of Task Manager, or a Windows GUI version of the top command. **
I can see what processes are running, when they started, and what started them. I can see CPU usage, RAM consumption, Virtual memory usage, and IO history for the whole system, or for each individual process. I can see what threads each process is running, and the stack trace on each of those threads.
I keep Process Explorer running on a second monitor, where I can see it out of the corner of my eye. New processes starting are coloured green, and processes terminating are coloured red (they can be changed, but I like the defaults), and this will catch my attention. I can see at a glance whether the amount of RAM has risen or fallen significantly, whether any particular process is using the CPU when it shouldn't be working, and basically where the activity is coming from.
But where it has proven most valuable is in noticing when processes haven't terminated when they should. Instead of finding these processes during a rare glance at Task Manager, when I have no idea when they started and what I was doing at the time, I will see it as it happens, and be able to investigate the bug while my previous actions are fresh in my mind.
And this feeds into something I believe about test case design and its value. I could have defined one test case (or several, or an infinity of test cases) that checked whether all processes terminated when they should have after executing various user scenarios. And I would have spent a few days working through those scenarios, driving myself half crazy with the tedium, and perhaps halfway through I would have noticed that I was running short on RAM, and I would start again to see which scenario was to blame, and a whole heap of time would have been taken up executing a test case that was better executed without being defined, while executing other test cases.
It isn't just with these kinds of tests, monitoring system behaviour, that I think leaving test cases initially undefined is a good idea, but that's a huge topic for another day.
* In fact, this is blatantly untrue. Open Source Testing has a lot of free resources listed, and although many of them don't solve my problems, some of them have proven useful and reduced my workload. If I can't overcome my prejudices, at least I can be aware of what they are.
** As implied, I have very little experience on Windows systems, and can just about navigate the file system in DOS. Although I tell this to anybody who listens, they seldom believe me. So while there may be DOS alternatives to do what I use Process Explorer to do, I didn't find information on them.
12 November 2006
Why a raven is like a writing desk
In my first post, I mentioned that I was far too busy outside of work - one of the things that I do outside of work is amateur dramatics, and last weekend I was stage managing a Shakespearean production in the old opera house in Helsinki.
I enjoy acting, and always have done, but recently I've come to appreciate working backstage instead. In part, it's because I like being in control, but also it is a completely different way of using the same skills I use in the office.
People look at me as if I'm insane when I say that, but it's true.
Observation: during rehearsals I am watching everything that goes on, from which of the actors chatter all the time, to who isn't ready for their entrance, to the magically vanishing prop (the actor is miming holding a cup right up until the moment they want to use both hands, and hey presto the imaginary cup is whisked out of existence). I watch for traffic jams, when too many people leave the stage at the same time, and run into people coming on stage.
During performances, I watch even closer. The final performance of our Shakespearean play, a piece of something floated down onto the stage from the flies. I needed to find a way to get it off the stage as soon as possible, but I also needed to find out what it was - we had an enormous contraption suspended above the stage, and if it was falling to pieces we would be in big trouble.
There was an easy solution to the first part, we had a scene change coming up and I could pick up the something en route, which turned out to be a non-essential bit of duct tape (which, incidentally, I should never have left behind in the first place - a mistake I won't be making again), but if I hadn't been looking that might have stayed on the stage for the rest of the evening. I could also reassure the few actors who noticed it that they weren't about to get any heavy surprises falling on their heads.
So, as suggested above, all my observation is for the purpose of anticipating problems before they occur. Loose edges of mats can be tripped over in the dark, loose cables can be dragged across the floor, unshielded lamps in the wings can flood onto the stage during blackouts, dropped props have to be taken off stage before the next scene begins, scenery needs to be put in the same place every time or the lighting will be wrong, and so on. The number of things that can go wrong backstage is huge, and I need to identify as many as possible. I also need to find solutions to the problems, and then implement the solutions, which is where the analogy to testing falls down (somewhat, if you think of the problems that I anticipate as bugs).
In a large production like our Shakespeare, I am not alone but leading a team who also look for problems and solve them. My Assistant Stage Manager came up with the idea for suspending our contraption above the stage after anticipating problems moving it on and off stage in a blackout, making no noise. One of my stage hands took on the problem of two slightly unruly actors who had to help in a scene change, and sorted them out so that they wouldn't collide with anybody or get in the way. An experienced actor impressed upon a twelve-year-old member of the cast the importance of not standing in front of the lighting rack in the wings, casting her shadow across the entire stage.
I don't want to push the analogy too far. In the office, somebody moving my tools from where I left them is irritating - backstage, my anger was incandescent when somebody (and nobody will own up to it) moved my roll of duct tape during performance. If I hadn't checked for it before I needed it, we would have had quite a problem.
One thing that I bring from stage management back to testing is that many problems can be solved with very low-tech methods. Sure, suspending a contraption over the stage to be lowered into place is pretty high-tech, but another tricky problem was solved with three bottles of water, some crumpled up newspaper and a napkin. So in testing, while to execute one test I might use packet sniffing software, a website mirroring tool and a testing interface to the test item, to execute another I use maybe a vi macro, or a three-line Perl script. The thing that matters is how well the solution solves the problem, not how technically advanced the solution is.
I enjoy acting, and always have done, but recently I've come to appreciate working backstage instead. In part, it's because I like being in control, but also it is a completely different way of using the same skills I use in the office.
People look at me as if I'm insane when I say that, but it's true.
Observation: during rehearsals I am watching everything that goes on, from which of the actors chatter all the time, to who isn't ready for their entrance, to the magically vanishing prop (the actor is miming holding a cup right up until the moment they want to use both hands, and hey presto the imaginary cup is whisked out of existence). I watch for traffic jams, when too many people leave the stage at the same time, and run into people coming on stage.
During performances, I watch even closer. The final performance of our Shakespearean play, a piece of something floated down onto the stage from the flies. I needed to find a way to get it off the stage as soon as possible, but I also needed to find out what it was - we had an enormous contraption suspended above the stage, and if it was falling to pieces we would be in big trouble.
There was an easy solution to the first part, we had a scene change coming up and I could pick up the something en route, which turned out to be a non-essential bit of duct tape (which, incidentally, I should never have left behind in the first place - a mistake I won't be making again), but if I hadn't been looking that might have stayed on the stage for the rest of the evening. I could also reassure the few actors who noticed it that they weren't about to get any heavy surprises falling on their heads.
So, as suggested above, all my observation is for the purpose of anticipating problems before they occur. Loose edges of mats can be tripped over in the dark, loose cables can be dragged across the floor, unshielded lamps in the wings can flood onto the stage during blackouts, dropped props have to be taken off stage before the next scene begins, scenery needs to be put in the same place every time or the lighting will be wrong, and so on. The number of things that can go wrong backstage is huge, and I need to identify as many as possible. I also need to find solutions to the problems, and then implement the solutions, which is where the analogy to testing falls down (somewhat, if you think of the problems that I anticipate as bugs).
In a large production like our Shakespeare, I am not alone but leading a team who also look for problems and solve them. My Assistant Stage Manager came up with the idea for suspending our contraption above the stage after anticipating problems moving it on and off stage in a blackout, making no noise. One of my stage hands took on the problem of two slightly unruly actors who had to help in a scene change, and sorted them out so that they wouldn't collide with anybody or get in the way. An experienced actor impressed upon a twelve-year-old member of the cast the importance of not standing in front of the lighting rack in the wings, casting her shadow across the entire stage.
I don't want to push the analogy too far. In the office, somebody moving my tools from where I left them is irritating - backstage, my anger was incandescent when somebody (and nobody will own up to it) moved my roll of duct tape during performance. If I hadn't checked for it before I needed it, we would have had quite a problem.
One thing that I bring from stage management back to testing is that many problems can be solved with very low-tech methods. Sure, suspending a contraption over the stage to be lowered into place is pretty high-tech, but another tricky problem was solved with three bottles of water, some crumpled up newspaper and a napkin. So in testing, while to execute one test I might use packet sniffing software, a website mirroring tool and a testing interface to the test item, to execute another I use maybe a vi macro, or a three-line Perl script. The thing that matters is how well the solution solves the problem, not how technically advanced the solution is.
30 October 2006
My first bug
I found my first bug on my first day at the Giant Fruit Company. It was a crash bug.
I mention this in interviews a lot, as I think it sounds cool. At the time, it made me think that I could get into this "testing thing", but there is a better lesson to be learned from how and why I found it.
As I mentioned, I started working at the Giant Fruit Company testing the porting of existing software onto their range of laptops. My first day, after introductions, I was given the task of testing Microsoft Word on the new laptop. For this kind of system, we had two guidelines. One was for testing the things that all applications were supposed to do on the Giant Fruit Company's operating system, in other words the GUI consistency. The second was for testing the behaviour of the particular application itself. In current jargon, they were test oracles. Altogether we spent ten hours on each application, five or six hours following the guidelines, the rest of the time on exploratory testing, where we just used the application to complete a task it would normally be used for.
My mentor left for a meeting, leaving me armed with the guidelines, a prototype laptop with correct installation, and some excitement at My Very First Testing Attempt.
Twenty minutes later I had crashed the laptop. I had a moment of panic, before remembering that in my new career this was actually a Good Thing. I carefully wrote down what I had done, then rebooted and checked whether I could do it again. I could! But what if I was doing it wrong?
My mentor returned from his meeting, and I started into my preamble. I had got to this point in the first guideline, and double-clicked on the menu bar, and the result wasn't what it was supposed to be.
"Oh yeah," he started. "That test is out of date, they got rid of that functionality a couple of releases back. Just skip it."
"But," I told him, anxiously. And showed him I crashed the laptop by carrying on double-clicking on the menu bar.
For each bug, we had a set regression path to follow, up through previous laptop incarnations until we found where the bug was introduced. This one had been with range since its very start. It remained unknown until I, as a complete newbie, stumbled on it.
From this, I got two lessons:
One: fresh eyes and ignorance are good things
Two: when bored, break things
Okay, I'm cheating a bit. I broke it because I was confused, there was a bug in my test oracle, and repeating the test until it worked was the only thing I could think of doing. But the idea of carrying on doing unexpected things was valuable, and I've found a lot of bugs on that principle alone. It's something I do when I feel bored, when dutifully verifying that x variation of test dimension y becomes too dull. There are always bugs like that to find.
Sadly, a couple of months later I learned a third lesson from that bug:
Three: large companies aren't necessarily structured so that bugs get fixed
When I left the Giant Fruit Company, that bug was still unfixed. The test team had one point of contact outside the test organisation, somebody called the Quality Lead. It became obvious that the Quality Lead was being evaluated on the number of bugs open on his project domain in the database. By labeling the bug as "Third party problem", it moved out of his domain and became somebody else's problem. And since it was a problem found with third party software, his rule of thumb was that it was a third party problem - even though outside this range of laptops it didn't occur.
Can you see where this is leading? We spent a large part of our time testing how third party applications behaved on our new laptop. Any bugs we found were deemed to be third party problems and never fixed, even when they clearly weren't. Morale was pretty low. Bug reports started getting abusive, people were fired for abusive bug reports, change was promised but never quite happened.
Most of the problem? We never even met the Quality Lead, never mind the people actually responsible for developing the new laptop. They were based on the West Coast US, we were in Ireland, we had phone conferences with other testers but that was about it. This did actually begin to change before I left, but too little too late.
I mention this in interviews a lot, as I think it sounds cool. At the time, it made me think that I could get into this "testing thing", but there is a better lesson to be learned from how and why I found it.
As I mentioned, I started working at the Giant Fruit Company testing the porting of existing software onto their range of laptops. My first day, after introductions, I was given the task of testing Microsoft Word on the new laptop. For this kind of system, we had two guidelines. One was for testing the things that all applications were supposed to do on the Giant Fruit Company's operating system, in other words the GUI consistency. The second was for testing the behaviour of the particular application itself. In current jargon, they were test oracles. Altogether we spent ten hours on each application, five or six hours following the guidelines, the rest of the time on exploratory testing, where we just used the application to complete a task it would normally be used for.
My mentor left for a meeting, leaving me armed with the guidelines, a prototype laptop with correct installation, and some excitement at My Very First Testing Attempt.
Twenty minutes later I had crashed the laptop. I had a moment of panic, before remembering that in my new career this was actually a Good Thing. I carefully wrote down what I had done, then rebooted and checked whether I could do it again. I could! But what if I was doing it wrong?
My mentor returned from his meeting, and I started into my preamble. I had got to this point in the first guideline, and double-clicked on the menu bar, and the result wasn't what it was supposed to be.
"Oh yeah," he started. "That test is out of date, they got rid of that functionality a couple of releases back. Just skip it."
"But," I told him, anxiously. And showed him I crashed the laptop by carrying on double-clicking on the menu bar.
For each bug, we had a set regression path to follow, up through previous laptop incarnations until we found where the bug was introduced. This one had been with range since its very start. It remained unknown until I, as a complete newbie, stumbled on it.
From this, I got two lessons:
One: fresh eyes and ignorance are good things
Two: when bored, break things
Okay, I'm cheating a bit. I broke it because I was confused, there was a bug in my test oracle, and repeating the test until it worked was the only thing I could think of doing. But the idea of carrying on doing unexpected things was valuable, and I've found a lot of bugs on that principle alone. It's something I do when I feel bored, when dutifully verifying that x variation of test dimension y becomes too dull. There are always bugs like that to find.
Sadly, a couple of months later I learned a third lesson from that bug:
Three: large companies aren't necessarily structured so that bugs get fixed
When I left the Giant Fruit Company, that bug was still unfixed. The test team had one point of contact outside the test organisation, somebody called the Quality Lead. It became obvious that the Quality Lead was being evaluated on the number of bugs open on his project domain in the database. By labeling the bug as "Third party problem", it moved out of his domain and became somebody else's problem. And since it was a problem found with third party software, his rule of thumb was that it was a third party problem - even though outside this range of laptops it didn't occur.
Can you see where this is leading? We spent a large part of our time testing how third party applications behaved on our new laptop. Any bugs we found were deemed to be third party problems and never fixed, even when they clearly weren't. Morale was pretty low. Bug reports started getting abusive, people were fired for abusive bug reports, change was promised but never quite happened.
Most of the problem? We never even met the Quality Lead, never mind the people actually responsible for developing the new laptop. They were based on the West Coast US, we were in Ireland, we had phone conferences with other testers but that was about it. This did actually begin to change before I left, but too little too late.
Welcome - why are we here at all?
Welcome to my new blog, where the main focus will be on my professional life as a software tester.
I decided to start blogging about testing for a host of reasons, but the main one is that so many people are talking absolute rubbish about testing, and I want to set the record straight. Or, join in with more rubbish. Sure, I don't know everything, but I have a lot of experience and a lot of ideas.
Another reason is that I've found that I work on instinct a lot, yet get good results. So in addition to pointing out the rubbish and laughing at it, I hope to formulate my own approach into some sort of coherent framework that could be taught to others. It is easy to point out where something is wrong, it is much more difficult to suggest a solution.
My background, with anonymised company names: I started working in the Giant Fruit Company in Cork (Ireland) as a software tester in 1996, first on testing the porting of software to their range of laptops, and then testing localized software bundles. In early 1998, I moved to Dublin to work for the Coffee Cup Stain, my introduction to testing to spec, working on very large systems for GSM network management. In 2002, I went-all-Irish and emigrated to Finland, to work for A Finnish Telecoms Company (not the one you're thinking of) (nor the other one you're thinking of), which is where I finally began to have some input into how I was testing. Finally getting frustrated with the product I was testing, in May 2006 I moved to my current employer, The Logistics People, where I am the lead tester and (I like to think) shining example to all.
In addition: I am a rare being, a senior tester who also really likes executing tests. I have trouble taking things seriously, although inside, y'know, I'm like tortured. I move at my own pace, I'm easily bored, and I am far too busy outside of work.
I decided to start blogging about testing for a host of reasons, but the main one is that so many people are talking absolute rubbish about testing, and I want to set the record straight. Or, join in with more rubbish. Sure, I don't know everything, but I have a lot of experience and a lot of ideas.
Another reason is that I've found that I work on instinct a lot, yet get good results. So in addition to pointing out the rubbish and laughing at it, I hope to formulate my own approach into some sort of coherent framework that could be taught to others. It is easy to point out where something is wrong, it is much more difficult to suggest a solution.
My background, with anonymised company names: I started working in the Giant Fruit Company in Cork (Ireland) as a software tester in 1996, first on testing the porting of software to their range of laptops, and then testing localized software bundles. In early 1998, I moved to Dublin to work for the Coffee Cup Stain, my introduction to testing to spec, working on very large systems for GSM network management. In 2002, I went-all-Irish and emigrated to Finland, to work for A Finnish Telecoms Company (not the one you're thinking of) (nor the other one you're thinking of), which is where I finally began to have some input into how I was testing. Finally getting frustrated with the product I was testing, in May 2006 I moved to my current employer, The Logistics People, where I am the lead tester and (I like to think) shining example to all.
In addition: I am a rare being, a senior tester who also really likes executing tests. I have trouble taking things seriously, although inside, y'know, I'm like tortured. I move at my own pace, I'm easily bored, and I am far too busy outside of work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)