The example could have been less contrived, but it did the job, which was to trigger discussion.
I would have liked to see what proportion of the audience actually does continuous integration, what percentage always include thorough automated tests in every commit, what percentage test first, etc.
The people who came with questions suggesting "i'd like to do testing but we don't do that at my company" did not get satisfactory answers, I don't think. Ultimately, you just have to work someplace where testing is de rigeur. That's all it takes. You'll never go back.
Not bad. Audience participation really kind of carried it though.
Unfortunately, I can't say that I took much away from this session. Coming from a workplace that does not do much testing, I was hoping to gain some perspective that I could share with my colleagues. This session didn't provide that. The material was not bad. Nor was the presenter's knowledge of the topic. However, the single example used for discussion was limiting. There were many long pauses where the audience was being "quizzed" for simple answers. That time could have been better spent digging into the topic of testing and applying it to other scenarios, but instead the presentation was forcibly cut short. Thinking back, did we even see an example of a test? Or just bad code versus good code?
Comments
Comments are closed.
This was good talk and the audience interaction portion was a real treat.
The example could have been less contrived, but it did the job, which was to trigger discussion.
I would have liked to see what proportion of the audience actually does continuous integration, what percentage always include thorough automated tests in every commit, what percentage test first, etc.
The people who came with questions suggesting "i'd like to do testing but we don't do that at my company" did not get satisfactory answers, I don't think. Ultimately, you just have to work someplace where testing is de rigeur. That's all it takes. You'll never go back.
Not bad. Audience participation really kind of carried it though.
Unfortunately, I can't say that I took much away from this session. Coming from a workplace that does not do much testing, I was hoping to gain some perspective that I could share with my colleagues. This session didn't provide that. The material was not bad. Nor was the presenter's knowledge of the topic. However, the single example used for discussion was limiting. There were many long pauses where the audience was being "quizzed" for simple answers. That time could have been better spent digging into the topic of testing and applying it to other scenarios, but instead the presentation was forcibly cut short. Thinking back, did we even see an example of a test? Or just bad code versus good code?