No time left at the end of the sprint for proper testing
Designers tend to add and change code
until the end of a sprint, not leaving enough time to do all the agreed
testing. At the start of a sprint, we assign rough time estimates to
user stories, taking both design and test activities into account. Some
tests are automated and run during the night.
However, other tests need manual preparation of data and partly manual execution and result analysis. There is also some amount of exploratory testing involved. During the sprint, there always seems to be a reason not to deliver yet to test: fixes, improvements and design updates. At the end of the sprint, little time is left for manual testing, far too less for running the tests, analyzing and repairing eventual bugs, retest and results logging.
What advise do you have for me, so that I can claim and really use a fair amount of the sprint time for testing?
However, other tests need manual preparation of data and partly manual execution and result analysis. There is also some amount of exploratory testing involved. During the sprint, there always seems to be a reason not to deliver yet to test: fixes, improvements and design updates. At the end of the sprint, little time is left for manual testing, far too less for running the tests, analyzing and repairing eventual bugs, retest and results logging.
What advise do you have for me, so that I can claim and really use a fair amount of the sprint time for testing?
With a follow up post of:
What I called
'delivery' is not a heavy weight process wall. It is just a oral
notification in the team stand up meeting that some story is ready for
test. Our way of working is pretty much in line with all points you
mention: except for point 5. "Testing is a fair amount of the sprint if
done well". I think 1 day left for testing out of a 2 week sprint is not
this 'fair' amount. The pattern that I have to cope with is: several
user stories are coded in parallel and they tend to be 'ready for test'
all at the same time, that is: 1 day before sprint end. The tester is
involved in functionality and architectural discussions during the
sprint and prepares test data and test scripts, ready to 'push the
button' when a story is ready.
My (currently unpublished) comment (with minor changes):
So, based on the info you've provided I'm going to make a bunch of suppositions along with ask a number of questions.
1. Is there a definition of 'done'? Does it include testing? If so, it seems like it's being ignored?
* If it is being ignored are there retrospectives held? What happens when this is brought up?
* Is the issue being recognised by the rest of the team?
* Is it being recognised and cared about?
* Are the powers that be aware?
2. Are the stories broken up into tasks? If so is it possible to test the tasks?
3. If what you are working on is broken up into (small) stories and setting aside the late adjustments there should be a constant stream of stories coming through, if not, has this been looked at? If so, what was the outcome?
4. Is it possible for team members to pair? IE testers and devs, ba's and testers, ba's and devs, etc.
5. Is there a visual representation of story process? Visible by everybody?
6. Is this way of working new to the team/company? Was there help making the transition? If there was, were they any good? Were any new people with more experience in this way of working hired?
7. Are you/the testers prepared to play hard ball? You can't possibly test a sprints worth of work in a day, so don't try.
8. How are the late adjustments getting into the story? They should be judged on value and as a team decided on whether or not they get into the sprint. Failing that then a story/stories can be dropped to allow for changes.
9. Is there a scrum master type role? Is he/she someone who has gone and gotten the CSM or are they experienced?
* Experience is very hard to judge, how is it done?
10. Is there a way to prepare test data through automation?
11. Is there any skill sets lacking in the team in general?
It doesn't seem like you have a testing issue, you have a team/culture/mindset issue.
1. Is there a definition of 'done'? Does it include testing? If so, it seems like it's being ignored?
* If it is being ignored are there retrospectives held? What happens when this is brought up?
* Is the issue being recognised by the rest of the team?
* Is it being recognised and cared about?
* Are the powers that be aware?
2. Are the stories broken up into tasks? If so is it possible to test the tasks?
3. If what you are working on is broken up into (small) stories and setting aside the late adjustments there should be a constant stream of stories coming through, if not, has this been looked at? If so, what was the outcome?
4. Is it possible for team members to pair? IE testers and devs, ba's and testers, ba's and devs, etc.
5. Is there a visual representation of story process? Visible by everybody?
6. Is this way of working new to the team/company? Was there help making the transition? If there was, were they any good? Were any new people with more experience in this way of working hired?
7. Are you/the testers prepared to play hard ball? You can't possibly test a sprints worth of work in a day, so don't try.
8. How are the late adjustments getting into the story? They should be judged on value and as a team decided on whether or not they get into the sprint. Failing that then a story/stories can be dropped to allow for changes.
9. Is there a scrum master type role? Is he/she someone who has gone and gotten the CSM or are they experienced?
* Experience is very hard to judge, how is it done?
10. Is there a way to prepare test data through automation?
11. Is there any skill sets lacking in the team in general?
It doesn't seem like you have a testing issue, you have a team/culture/mindset issue.
I'd like to know what I've missed?
