Testing Economics by Gil Zilberfeld
We’ve already grown to understanding testing, and its place in agile development. Everybody thinks it’s well worth the effort.
More likely, as with development, or requirement engineering, we’re wasting time on inefficient and ineffective testing activities. We build tests that we later rewrite, again and again (in our case it was 25% percent of development time.) We write automated tests that we won’t understand a year from now, losing their value once they are written). We collect giant suites of tests that take longer time to run, and our feedback gets slower and slower. And based on these we decide what to test manually, which is costly in itself.
We don’t think about testing in economic terms, day to day. In fact, because of its feedback role, we think about testing as insurance premium – we feel better just because we pay for it.
We can do better. In this session, we’ll talk about the economics of testing. We’ll see the impact of deciding what to test, how to test and how we balance different kinds of testing through the glasses of economics. We’ll try to lower our insurance cost, for the same, or even better ROI.
- The history of testing
- We are all professional testers
- Testing macro processes (collaboration vs specialization, bugs, testable architecture, maintenance, strategy)
- Testing micro processes (Debugging, TDD, System tests, ATDD)
- ROI (and why it's not relevant anymore).
|Constraints and Class Arrangement||
NDC London 2014.
|Last Updated||04 Jan 10:12|