Monday, May 22, 2017

Agile Testing Essentials LiveLessons - A Review

Do you like video courses? Maybe you prefer them over reading books? In my case, I enjoy all kinds of media for learning, with a mixed approach working best for me. When I heard that Lisa Crispin and Janet Gregory are working on a video course about the essentials of agile testing, I knew I had to check it out. Their books Agile Testing and More Agile Testing accompanied me on my personal learning journey and provided great advice in many situations. So I was curious how Lisa and Janet would convey the essentials using videos and what I still might learn from them.


The video course contains the following six lessons on agile testing.
  1. Lesson 1: Introduction to the Whole Team Approach
  2. Lesson 2: Test Planning in Agile Contexts
  3. Lesson 3: Shared Understanding through Early Testing
  4. Lesson 4: Automation in Agile
  5. Lesson 5: Agile Exploration
  6. Lesson 6: Ingredients for Success
All these essential parts of agile testing are addressed in a condensed form. Of course there is way more you might be able to talk about, but it would have exceeded the scope of conveying the core messages. For more information, Lisa and Janet refer to their books and encourage you to dig deeper yourself. As a starting point, they added a great list of recommended further readings to the course.


The video length ranges from a a few minutes to about ten minutes, which feels just right to be able to pause and resume any time. To get a first impression yourself, you can watch the introduction video for free. However, please be aware that this is the first video course Lisa and Janet did so far. As with every new experience, you learn as you go. In my personal opinion, the introduction video is not representative of how the two present their content throughout the course. With every lesson they get more used to the format and present way more naturally. To be honest, I love that this shows that we're all humans and constantly trying to improve.


In each lesson, Lisa and Janet first present the key concepts and then ask the viewer to do a few small exercises. This way you can instantly apply the theory. They have you pause the video and think how you would answer certain questions in your context, or which examples and cases you might think of to explore a sample application. I loved how they got me actively thinking and involved at any point. I just couldn't help comparing the presented ideas with my own situation, and found myself making lots of notes what I would love to try next with my team. Furthermore, they share their personal experience about many topics by telling stories from the teams they worked on. I especially enjoyed this part, as it combines the theory with "the real world", showing how they gained and applied knowledge. They also share how experiments might fail from time to time, making clear that failing is an essential part of learning.

Target Audience

In this video course, beginner testers find condensed essential knowledge, providing great guidance on their way to grow. However, I would still recommend them to read Lisa's and Janet's awesome books. In my point of view, the video course is not a replacement for them, but it is a great starting point.

More advanced testers probably know about most concepts (and most probably have read both books already). Still, the course is a great reminder of the basics and might trigger one thought or another. Although its content had not been new to me, the course got me thinking on how to better convey these essentials to my own team and company.

Which leads me to my most important point: This course is not only useful for people identifying as testers, especially as those most probably would not read the agile testing books. I warmly recommend it to everyone working in agile environments, as agile testing is in its core a whole team topic and everybody should know about its essentials.

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Thoughts about Testing in a Mob

This was not the first mobbing experience for our team, but the first one to complete a whole story using this approach. One key factor that the team agreed with mobbing at all, was that our mob size changed dynamically. Whoever wanted to join the mob was welcome any time, and whoever preferred to work on other tasks could do so as well. This way, our mob consisted of three to seven persons. The downside of this approach was that we did not always have all the knowledge at hand but had to ask asynchronously for feedback. Still, we had enough knowledge available to stay productive and make progress.

Personally I decided to always stay in the mob. As a team player, there was no other option for me. As the person who triggered that we give this approach a try, I was curious how it will work out and did not want to miss this learning experience. And as the only person identifying as tester on the team, I felt staying in the mob was just perfect to trigger tests, provide feedback, raise questions, and seek answers as soon as possible. This way, I felt another downside of the dynamic mob size: As some teammates decided to work on their "own" stories, I missed to provide feedback on those as early as I could (though of course others could have stepped in). Luckily the mob selected a story we needed to complete to achieve our sprint goal, which justified that I spent all my efforts there first.

After we finished our story, I was feeling proud. This was really a joint team effort and we all had our hands on the story, ensuring quality from different perspectives. But one thing made me think: Shortly before we decided that our changes are ready to be merged, one colleague challenged this by raising the question who does testing of the story. At first this puzzled me, as we had included testing all the way from start to finish. So I answered that the mob tested the story thoroughly. But this teammate was not convinced that you could possibly come up with all necessary tests in the mob.

As he could not tell what else to test, and the current mob agreed that we covered everything from quality perspective, we merged the story nonetheless. But his comment left me wondering. Did we forget something? Should we have something done differently? Should we have not allowed for dynamic mob sizes as particularly this colleague did not join all sessions? Which reasons did he have to think that testing cannot be done in a mob? Is there a trust issue?

Naturally, I don't have all the answers but I will keep an eye on this issue. To gain more insights, I decided to join Maaret Pyhäjärvi's tutorial at Agile Testing Days 2017 about Mob Testing. Still, my biggest hope is that my team continues working on actual stories as a mob to gather more experience ourselves and learn by doing.

Thursday, May 4, 2017

Mobbing - Take Two and Take Three

Two days ago, my team had quite a tough retrospective, openly addressing the issues we have in the team. Mobbing was named as one approach to improve knowledge sharing as well as challenging potential implementations. So we decided to mob again on the next day. In addition to the feedback on our first mobbing session, there was a strong wish to do things in a more informal way, more spontaneously, and with a more dynamic mob size.

Take Two

We decided not to book a separate meeting room but use our office, since we have our own big TV screen and quite some space upfront. We figured if this would work, we could mob way more spontaneously. We share our office with another team, so we wondered whether mobbing would disturb them more than other discussions we normally have in the team. We decided to "not ask for permission, rather for forgiveness" and just try it. And it worked out pretty well.
One of our longtime working students just started working full-time. Since he missed our first mobbing session, I provided a short introduction to the key concepts, emphasizing the rule that you're valuable in the mob if you are either contributing or learning.

This time we picked a large, complex story introducing new technology into our product. We considered it crucial to have the new knowledge shared with everybody as soon as possible.

According to the feedback from our first mobbing session, we decided on a longer and not so strict rotation. We set the timer to six minutes. When the alarm set off, we had the navigator finish what he wanted to do, and only then rotate. This rather event-triggered approach was really well received.

This time we had one team member working from home office, so he could only join remotely. As we don't have a technical solution to grant control, but only can share our screens, he could not become the driver. The mob had the impression that our remote team member felt left out, and he himself confirmed that the technical setup did not work well remotely.

After a two hour session, we finished with a short retrospective what we liked and what we longed for. Again the team loved the knowledge sharing aspects, the learning, the different approaches, the collaboration, the team building. Even though we had yet another developer laptop with yet another keyboard layout and no mouse available, it worked really well. People were a lot more willing to adapt to the unused layout. And the best thing was that when finishing mobbing for lunch time, we had a working increment! On the other hand, some doubts were raised whether the driver / navigator pattern really helped us or rather held us back. Productivity was again questioned. Also, we longed for more preparation and discussion upfront before actually starting with the implementation.
Still, the team agreed to continue mobbing on the story as we introduced new technology here and it was important that everybody on the team shared the knowledge. We agreed to try an even less formal approach for the next session, without strong navigator / driver roles and instead rather have everybody contribute on the fly. Last but not least, we also agreed to try a more dynamic mob size, with people being allowed to leave (like for personal meetings) or join anytime.

Take Three

Today, we gathered around our TV again. This time all co-located. Still, we had a team member in the mob who missed the last session, so we started by getting him on board what the story is about and how far we got. Then we continued with a short discussion on the open things to do, potential solutions, and agreed on the next step.

We had everyone on the mob, being allowed to contribute, even the one on the keyboard. We did not use a timer anymore, but still rotated the one at the keyboard about every fifteen minutes. We had a third developer laptop with yet another keyboard layout and even operating system - and again, it was not much of a problem anymore.

We also had the case that one developer left for a meeting and afterwards rejoined the mob. It didn't cause any issue. I had to leave for a conference call in the middle of the session myself.

After two hours, the team came to a point where they got blocked by another story currently in development, so they decided to stop. We didn't do a formal retrospective anymore, just asking around for opinions. We found that we really like this pretty informal approach, still with only one laptop, but with everyone contributing. We liked that the mob still rotated the one at the keyboard from time to time. We loved that everybody could speak up and contribute ideas. We loved even more that this session was received way more productive. All agreed they were happy with this format!

What Next?

The team wanted to give mobbing a try at least three times to find out how this approach might help us. Well, we've done three sessions by now, so our initial objective is accomplished. Originally, I wanted to keep the strict format for a longer period. However, I feared that the team would reject mobbing itself then, so now I'm really glad that we instantly adapted and tried a more informal way. I'm also glad this worked out with everybody still speaking up and being heard. As they liked this informal approach, I now see the chance that the team will not only include mobbing in their toolbox, but also make use of this tool, at least from time to time. I'm curious if a trigger will still be needed to break old habits and remind ourselves of this option. But I would love to see that happen.