March 2012 – Issue 7

Published on March 13, 2012 in Archive, Latest Issues
 

Get The Testing Planet #7

In This Issue

This issue has lots of lovely pages jam packed written by the software testing community.

  • Letter from the co-editor – Simon Knight
  • The future of software testing Part two – TestOps – Seth Eliot
  • Going mobile: Testing beyond the device – Jonathan Kohl
  • A cautionary tale regarding the importance of exercising care when choosing mobile device test data – Stephen Janaway
  • Set the load test tool to ramming speed! – Brian J. Noggle
  • Testing Big Data – Adam Knight
  • The periodic table of data – Pipe dream or possibility? – Adrian Stokes
  • A Look Inside Sauce Labs
  • The Build-A-Tester Workshop – Jesper Lindholt Ottosen
  • Ten reasons why you fix bugs as soon as you find them – Andy Glover & Matt Archer
  • What is static analysis? – Chris Wysopal
  • Crossing the testing minefield – Mike Talks
  • Can We Say “No” – Markus Gärtner
  • The Evil Tester Question Time
  • If The Customer Never Sees The Bug, Does It Ever Exist?
  • Chat From The Twittersphere
  • Time For A Change -
  • Testing Tips
  • Cartoon Corner
  • Directory
Get The Testing Planet #7
 

3 Responses to March 2012 – Issue 7

  1. Jesper L Ottosen May 28, 2012 at 8:09 pm #

    Trackback: http://jlottosen.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/more-women-in-testing/

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Software Testing Blog » Blog Archive » The Future of Software Testing - March 23, 2012

    [...] Interesting article from Seth Eliot on the future of software testing in “The Testing Planet” this week. You will find a copy of the article here (although it does require a subscription)…. http://www.thetestingplanet.com/2012/03/march-2012-issue-7/ [...]
  2. More women in testing « Complexity is a matter of perspective - May 28, 2012

    [...] [ The Build-A-Tester Workshop |  MARCH 13, 2012 | jlottosen ] you might find initial engagement and strengths in a team of like-minded people – the team with the right mix of types for the context has the best options and is likely to be more successful. Said in other words a team consisting of only one ”type” would be good at only a few things and not so good in the rest. [...]

Leave a Reply