A few weeks ago, a colleague of mine tweeted an assertion that the context-driven testing school “censures” people who advocate for best practices. I responded: “No one has the authority to censure people on behalf of the school” and “Surely we can disagree with people without censuring them.” The discussion resurfaced on the “software-testing” listserv […]
My last post responded to Michael Bolton’s: “Why Pass vs. Fail Rates Are Unethical“, Michael argued that calculating the ratio of passing tests to failing tests is irresponsible, unethical, unprofessional, unscientific and inhumane. I think this is an example of a growing problem in the rhetoric of context-driven testing–I think it considers too little the […]
The post Metrics, Ethics, & Context-Driven Testing (Part 2) appeared first on Context Driven Testing.
Contexts differ. Testers provide information to our clients (stakeholders) about the product, about how we tested it, and about what we found. Our clients get to decide what information they want. We don’t get to decide that for them. Testers provide services to software projects. We don’t run the projects. We don’t control those projects’ […]
The post Contexts differ: Recognizing the difference between wrong and Wrong appeared first on Context Driven Testing.
So, did I really say that context-driven testing is dead? No, that was some other guy (Scott Barber) who’s using the buzz to launch a different idea. It’s effective marketing, and Scott has interesting ideas. But that’s his assertion, not mine. What I wrote a few days ago was this: If there ever was one context-driven school, there is not one […]