WTANZ 14 – Remote Pair Testing with Pipedrive
Date: Saturday 27/07/13
Time: 2:00 p.m. AEST
Attendees: Dean Mackenzie, Jagannath(Jagan) Sriramulu, Rachel Leleque, Raghu S, Ragou Puru, Richard Robinson and Alessandra Moreira as WTANZ.
Outsourcing and distributed teams are becoming increasingly common in Australia and New Zealand. There are arguments for and against this practice, however there is no denying that more and more companies are buying into it.
Pair testing has many benefits and it is typically done by two testers sharing a single machine. Some of the benefits of pair testing has been outlined by Cem Kaner and James Bach in Exploratory Testing in Pairs: it generates more ideas, it is more fun, helps testers stay on task, less interruptions, and better reporting amongst others.
In this session of WTANZ we explored how well Pair Testing translates to distributed teams by testing https://www.pipedrive.com. One of the four main claims of this application is that “it is so easy to use that sales people love it”. The mission was to pair up and gather information about this claim and to report any defects found during test.
We were joined by a great cast of testers from Australia, New Zealand and India.
After introductions, the group was split into pairs as follows: Rich & Raghu, Jagan & Rachel, Ragou & Dean. The groups were given the mission/charters and then asked to test in pairs, in a separate chat window, for the following 50 minutes. Accordingly, what followed was quite unusual for Open Testing in a Weekend Testing session: silence in the main chat! It was quite lonely there for a while, but lots was going on in each separate chat, as the individual transcripts show.
Each pair took a different approach to testing, as it was to be expected. Some drew out a specific path to test, others tested individually and only used the collaboration chat to report defects.
Some of the testers had previous experience with pair testing in its more traditional format, sharing a computer screen and keyboard, and reported a fundamental difference between traditional pair testing and what we started to call ‘text pair testing’. It was found that there was more space to do individual concurrent testing, while still having the benefit of sharing findings with one another.
Some of the drawbacks where difficulties in describing an issue, or taking longer to do so in comparison of being face-to-face. Testers also reported that the simple fact of having to type had a ‘filtering’ effect in communication – where they chose what to say and maybe said it in a different way than if having a conversation with each other.
It was discussed, amongst others, that one commercial application for text pair testing could be training or up skilling testers.
The full transcript for this session can be found here.
It was a fantastic session, thank you for all who joined in.