This is a post written by Geert van de Lisdonk about a project he worked 1,5 year on as a Test consultant.
My last project was in the financial sector. The product we made was used by private banks. Our users were the Investment Managers of those banks. They are called the rock stars of the banking world. Those people didn’t have time for us. We could get little information from them via their secretaries or some meeting that was planned meticulously. And in that meeting only 1 or 2 of our people could be present, to make sure they didn’t spent too much time. Getting specs or finding out what to build and build the right thing was not an easy task. Our business analysts had their work cut out for them but did a very good job with the resources they had. Getting feedback from them was even more difficult. Especially getting it fast so we could change the product quickly. Despite all that, we were able to deliver a working product to all clients. This blogpost is a reflection on what I think I did well, what didn’t do well and what I would have changed if could have done it over.
What we did well
One of the best things we did, in my opinion, were the handovers. Every time something was developed, a handover was done. This handover consists out of the developer showing what has been created to me, the tester, and the product owner.
This moment creates an opportunity for the PO to verify if the correct thing has been build or point out possible improvements.
As a tester this is a great source of information. With both the developer and the PO present, all possible questions can be answered. Technical, functional and everything in between can be reviewed and corrected if necessary.
Getting the tester involved early is always a good idea. When the Business Analysts had decided on what needed to be made, a grooming session was called to discuss how we could achieve this.
Most of the times there was already some kind of solution prepared by the Product Manager that would suit the needs of several clients. This general solution would then be discussed.
For me this was a moment I could express concern and point out risks. This information would also be a base for the tests I’d be executing.
The team I was in is what I would describe as a distributed team. We had team-members in Belgium, UK and 2 places in Italy. Working together wasn’t always easy. In the beginning most mass communication was done using emails sent to the entire team. This didn’t prove very efficient so we switched to using Microsoft Teams.
There was one main channel which we used the most. Some side channels were also set up that would be used for specific cases. People in the team were expected to have Teams open at all times. This sometimes didn’t happen and caused problems. It took some getting used to, but after a while I felt like we were doing a decent job!
What we could have done better
When I first joined the team the stand-ups happened very ad-hoc. You could get a call between 9am-3pm or none at all. Instead a meeting was booked with a link to a group Skype conversation. Everybody was now expected to join this conversation at 10am for the stand-up. This was a great improvement! Every sprint we would start with a planning meeting and set out the work we were supposed to do.
But there were also ceremonies missing. At no point in time was there a sprint review or a retrospective. This meant that developers didn’t know from each other what had been finished or what the application is currently capable of.
The biggest missing ritual in my opinion was the retrospective. There was no formal way of looking at how we did things and discussing on how we could improve. Having a distributed team didn’t help here. Also the high pace we were try to maintain made it difficult. But if the PM would have pushed more for this, I think the team could have benefited a lot.
There was no incentive to write unit tests. So there were only a handful of them. Not because the developers didn’t want to. They even agreed that we should write them! There was just nobody waiting for them so they didn’t write them.
There were multiple refactorings of code that could have been improved with unit tests. Many bugs were discovered that wouldn’t have existed if only there were some unit tests written. But since nobody asked for it, and the pace was to high, no time was spent on them.
This project was ran at a fast pace. Between grooming and delivery were sometimes only 3 sprints. 1 for analysis, 1 for development, 1 for testing/fixing/deploying. This got us in trouble lots of time. When during development raised new questions or requirements emerged, there was little time for redirection. Luckily we were able to diminish the scope most of the time, but I still feel we delivered lower quality than we would have liked.
What I would have done differently
Looking back, it was difficult for the PM to know exactly what I was doing. We used TFS to track our work, but it wasn’t very detailed. The stand-ups did provide some clarity, but only a partial message.
My testing was documented in a OneNote on the SharePoint, so he technically could verify what I was doing. Although admittedly this would require a lot of energy from him.
I think he would have preferred pass/fail test cases, but I didn’t deem that feasible with the high pace we were trying to maintain.
In hindsight I could have delivered weekly reports or sprint reports of what was done and what issues were found or resolved. This would would of course take some time at the end of the sprint, that could be an issue. I did look for a decent way to report on my testing but never found a format that suited me.
Fix more bugs myself
We were working CRM Dynamics that was altered to fit the needs of our customers. Both the system and the product were built in such a way that most setting could be altered in the UI. It took me a while to learn how these things worked but managed to resolve bug myself. Sometimes I didn’t know how to resolve them in the UI. I would then take this opportunity and have the developers explain to me how to resolve it next time I encounter something similar.
Since the framework restricted us in some ways, we also made use of a C# middleware to deal with more complex things. The middleware issues were harder for me to resolve so I don’t think I would be able to fix those by myself. The middleware developers being in Italy also complicated things. Pairing on the bug fixes could have taught me a lot. This did happen from time to time, but not frequently enough so I could dive in and sort things out myself.
Additionally, having more insights into the application would have been a nice luxury to have. Through tools such as ‘Dynatrace’, Application Insights,… I could have provided more information to the developers.
Despite the high pace this project was ran, we still managed to do very good things. The people on the development team were very knowledgeable and taught me a lot. Sure there were some things that I would have liked to change, but that will always be the case. To me the biggest problem was that we didn’t reflect on ourselves. This meant we stagnated on several levels and only grew slowly as a team and a product.
I learned that I value (self-)reflection a lot. More than I previously knew. I started looking for other ways to reflect. At DEWT I got advised to start a journal for myself. This is something I plan on doing for my next project. Currently I have a notebook that I use for all testing related events. Not yet a diary, but a start of this self-reflection habit!
I also learned how I like to conduct my testing and where problems might have risen there. Focus on people and software instead of documentation. I would add some kind of reporting to show of my work. I’ve been looking in good ways to do this report, but am yet to find a format that suits me.