curl -D- -X GET -H "Authorization: Basic [email + key]" -H "Content-Type: application/json" "https://[company].atlassian.net/rest/api/2/issue/[ticket id]"
[email + key] needs to be encrypted
Showing posts with label test. Show all posts
Showing posts with label test. Show all posts
Monday, November 8, 2021
Thursday, April 30, 2020
Waterfall Tester in an Agile World (thought experiment)
I've been in a couple corporate worlds that are agile... well in my option, "claims" to be agile. In my opinion, most companies that I have worked for and heard from friends are really just waterfall-light or lean or wagile. My big question for today because a group just recently acquired two QA testers to join their agile group.
This got me thinking, how does QA fit into an agile group? Our testers are expected to test after devs are done developing, so how is this different from waterfall? In full agile, QA would work with developers which I have not seen any self-claimed agile group actually do (not to say they do not exist, just saying... not sure what I am saying but seems important).
TO THE MAIN POINT... (focus, focus)... I think in the agile world, testers should be a special type of end-user. An end-user that is focused on breaking the system. When they find a bug, they report it like any end-user. Simple, clean, and feels like a nice sweet spot.
There is a little nagging feeling on this in that "isn't this testing in prod?" If we trust the agile methodology, this should not be a major concern. Small changes should have small impacts. By small change, I mean a change that has little impact. (Is that a catch-22?) What I want to say is that, there can be physical small changes that have big impacts. For example, a piece of code that is heavily coupled with almost everything, like security or audit or logging.
How does agile test those conditions? I don't think there is really any agile-method besides really falling onto a more waterfall-method. Which is also one of the reasons that I always shudder when I hear leadership say we need to go 100% agile. I may not know agile enough, but doesn't the first 30 minutes of agile training basically make that impossible unless the company really has absolutely no idea what it is doing? I mean, we have full spec'd out requirement that has been done multiple times... and you want to make that agile too?
I've been in two waterfall to agile transformations, and I've seen processes that took a couple days that are now two weeks because they need to go through more steps. Yes, agile should address this but don't like it when it becomes more waterfall so... yea. I tried... again... and again... but at some point there are more important things to fry and technically it adds more job security for my role. People look at me weird suggest something that does not really benefit me personally.
Anyways, if I ever have my only agile team and was assigned QA testers... I would have them help with writing test cases then test things in production. Bugs/issues will just go on the backlog and treated in an existing process.
This got me thinking, how does QA fit into an agile group? Our testers are expected to test after devs are done developing, so how is this different from waterfall? In full agile, QA would work with developers which I have not seen any self-claimed agile group actually do (not to say they do not exist, just saying... not sure what I am saying but seems important).
TO THE MAIN POINT... (focus, focus)... I think in the agile world, testers should be a special type of end-user. An end-user that is focused on breaking the system. When they find a bug, they report it like any end-user. Simple, clean, and feels like a nice sweet spot.
There is a little nagging feeling on this in that "isn't this testing in prod?" If we trust the agile methodology, this should not be a major concern. Small changes should have small impacts. By small change, I mean a change that has little impact. (Is that a catch-22?) What I want to say is that, there can be physical small changes that have big impacts. For example, a piece of code that is heavily coupled with almost everything, like security or audit or logging.
How does agile test those conditions? I don't think there is really any agile-method besides really falling onto a more waterfall-method. Which is also one of the reasons that I always shudder when I hear leadership say we need to go 100% agile. I may not know agile enough, but doesn't the first 30 minutes of agile training basically make that impossible unless the company really has absolutely no idea what it is doing? I mean, we have full spec'd out requirement that has been done multiple times... and you want to make that agile too?
I've been in two waterfall to agile transformations, and I've seen processes that took a couple days that are now two weeks because they need to go through more steps. Yes, agile should address this but don't like it when it becomes more waterfall so... yea. I tried... again... and again... but at some point there are more important things to fry and technically it adds more job security for my role. People look at me weird suggest something that does not really benefit me personally.
Anyways, if I ever have my only agile team and was assigned QA testers... I would have them help with writing test cases then test things in production. Bugs/issues will just go on the backlog and treated in an existing process.
Monday, July 14, 2014
Bored: Hearing Test to Determine Age
I was watching Brain Games and it was showing the hearing test. They had a few age groups. I heard them all. But when they played under age 25, I thought I heard a sound but then it did not go away in my head. This made me wonder if I even heard it.
This made me to go online to see if I can find the sound again. I found a YouTube video that played more frequencies. When it reached under 30, it went completely quiet. But then when there was a higher frequency that played that I heard. When I backtracked, I did not hear any sounds underneath. But then when I used the left arrow to go back, I was able to hear all the sounds rather clearly. When I tried again, no sounds played but I heard my speakers click. Then I noticed that YouTube had filtered some of the sounds. I do not understand why it played temporarily though.
Anyways, this made the video unreliable. I continued my search and found an online tone generator (Reference-1). Here I was able to hear frequencies between 10Hz and 20154Hz. The lower ranges were kind of tough though. I can probably noticeable hear 23-25Hz. But if I used the start and stop, I can hear slightly lower than that but it is a very dull sound. In other words, I probably would not notice the sound is even playing if I listened for it but I can notice a change in sound if I toggled between on and off. Past 10Hz, I do not detect the slightest change.
A limitation to this may be the speakers as well. So I'm not sure if this a good test. The only way to validate this is to have a listening device that can detect what frequency is actually playing. At least for my curiosity, I am at least able to hear the frequencies. I wonder if volume has to do with it too.
Another "test" is as I was watching TV as I typed this post, I had left the tone generator on. Somehow I tuned out the tone but when I returned back to this post on a commercial break, I noticed that there was an odd low tone then recalled that I had forgotten to turn it off. So it is kind of interesting how I am able to tune out certain sounds.
2- http://braingames.nationalgeographic.com/
This made me to go online to see if I can find the sound again. I found a YouTube video that played more frequencies. When it reached under 30, it went completely quiet. But then when there was a higher frequency that played that I heard. When I backtracked, I did not hear any sounds underneath. But then when I used the left arrow to go back, I was able to hear all the sounds rather clearly. When I tried again, no sounds played but I heard my speakers click. Then I noticed that YouTube had filtered some of the sounds. I do not understand why it played temporarily though.
Anyways, this made the video unreliable. I continued my search and found an online tone generator (Reference-1). Here I was able to hear frequencies between 10Hz and 20154Hz. The lower ranges were kind of tough though. I can probably noticeable hear 23-25Hz. But if I used the start and stop, I can hear slightly lower than that but it is a very dull sound. In other words, I probably would not notice the sound is even playing if I listened for it but I can notice a change in sound if I toggled between on and off. Past 10Hz, I do not detect the slightest change.
A limitation to this may be the speakers as well. So I'm not sure if this a good test. The only way to validate this is to have a listening device that can detect what frequency is actually playing. At least for my curiosity, I am at least able to hear the frequencies. I wonder if volume has to do with it too.
Another "test" is as I was watching TV as I typed this post, I had left the tone generator on. Somehow I tuned out the tone but when I returned back to this post on a commercial break, I noticed that there was an odd low tone then recalled that I had forgotten to turn it off. So it is kind of interesting how I am able to tune out certain sounds.
Reference
1 - http://blog.szynalski.com/2012/08/29/online-tone-generator/2- http://braingames.nationalgeographic.com/
Monday, July 11, 2011
Quote: True Test of Character
"The true test of character is not how much we know how to do, but how we behave when we don't know what to do." (John W. Holt, Jr.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)