Exploratory Testing

The second to last session on our journey to know what testing really was was about exploratory testing. The presentations were really good. I learned a lot and to be honest I actually expected a lot from the presentations.
One of the one part I am feeling the least of confidence in software engineering is exploratory testing. Mostly because I haven't been really doing that. I have high hopes for the future and maybe, maybe I could use some of the learning in my current job. Maybe I could participate ET sessions where the whole team is doing that. Maybe there's something new for me next Friday.
I did not do extensive preparations to the 3rd dojo. More or less I came with all I had. No excuses about not having time - rather I prioritized something else more. Well, I did join to learn. And learn I did, that's sure.

As mentioned in the session, I haven't used any bug tracking software for ages now. I think the last time we tracked bugs in a tool was early 2007. That is, either we haven't had any (well, we did - in fact 2) or we have been tracking the bugs with orange index cards on the wall. Either way, seeing an open source bug tracking software (let alone project management) in action was a thrill.
That would be pretty much the kind of software I'd like to use. And I've heard quite a bit good rumors about Redmine. So, a tool well worth a study.
When it comes to the dojo, our decision of using the university web site as our problem context seemed to be a rather good call. The instant hassle after we revealed the big secret really meant that we selected a site that arouses interest. How cool would it be to find a bug in our university web site?
We took a deliberate *risk* in exposing the whole university web site for testing. Yes, it is a vast area. Bigger than most testing task ever will be. The groups ended up taking two different approaches to the challenge. All in all, testing turned up being somewhat random, or could I say even ad-hoc. No worries, it was pretty much what was expected. And the most important part was that it was fun.
About Feedback:
We were given feedback that the challenge was too big. That we would've learnt the same lessons in smaller sites. Yes, we agree. And we also see a lot of benefits in randomly going through the selected site. First and foremost it seemed to be fun. And, with no less of importance, we hopefully all realize that ET is not something that can be done with no planning. Just starting to 'do ET'  does not make it necessarily exploratory. It is hard and it will be even more fun when getting 'into the zone' after some preparations.

So, the ad-hoc type hassle trying things here and there was pretty much what we expected. With no clear guidance from us. Nearly none, to be exact. And as said, it was a deliberate decision. Seeing what testing could end up being (ad-hoc) gives us (or rather, you) a great chance to introduce a more meaningful, planned and coherent way of doing ET. I am hoping that we are building a story of ET (from ad-hoc to planned) just like we did with ATDD.

Let's see how things go!