Our theme had to do with "Writing Better Functional Test Code". What struck me more than any other aspect at the gathering was how many different ways programmers, scripters, testers, and managers are attacking the issues involved in writing (and maintaining!) functional tests.
We had demonstrations of imperative approaches, deterministic approaches, random approaches, frameworks using mocks and stubs and Watir, FITNesse and Selenium, frameworks using math and using pixels, we had Ruby and sed and C++ and Java and C# and SOAP and databases and files, we had BDD and TDD and performance approaches.
And we had a ukelele. But only for two minutes. That was my fault.
Elisabeth Henderson wants a large-scale consolidated approach to doing functional testing. But given what we saw today, I start to think that even if someone were to give Elisabeth her pony, other functional testers would still find a dire need for aardvarks and platypuses.
We had demonstrations of imperative approaches, deterministic approaches, random approaches, frameworks using mocks and stubs and Watir, FITNesse and Selenium, frameworks using math and using pixels, we had Ruby and sed and C++ and Java and C# and SOAP and databases and files, we had BDD and TDD and performance approaches.
And we had a ukelele. But only for two minutes. That was my fault.
Elisabeth Henderson wants a large-scale consolidated approach to doing functional testing. But given what we saw today, I start to think that even if someone were to give Elisabeth her pony, other functional testers would still find a dire need for aardvarks and platypuses.