If you are asking this as a tester, you probably asking too late.
Automation is something that can save you some portion of your work (understand resources for your client) and i rarely found cases of testing work that did not need at least some portion of automation.
I know that it is rarely understood that automation is something to be developed & maintained and if you cover enough of the application, you do not need any more regression - well i do not think that somebody has done an automation regression suite that if fully reliable (i am not speaking about maintaining this code - which is another topic). There can be always a bug (or quality issue) that slips through, even when you scripts go through the afflicted part.
I understand that many testers have no development background or skills, but i doubt the developers that could help you are far away. I am not assuming that they can do the scripts for you....
However if they understand what you need, they can say how easy is …
Cynefin was on my radar ever since I joined The House. It seemed an interesting idea worthy of further pursuit, therefore I decided to visit a training on this topic in London this April.
My first thought was "What I'm doing here?!" - the other attendees were a mix of scrum masters, project managers and similar sort, which was actually to be expected. Cynefin is a decision-making framework which seems to be applicable mainly in management, but my firm belief is that testing can benefit from it equally.
My goal was, however, to find out more about Cynefin and how to apply it to my work as a software tester. I expect it will take some time to my thoughts on this fully settle and I get the whole picture from this training. My colleagues got already some very good insights from cynefin, my goal is to follow this path. The purpose of this blog is to summarize my thoughts on this so I can revisit later in my life and maybe see how much my understanding changed.
Security breaches, hacks, exploits, major ransomware attacks - their frequency
seem to increase recently. These can result in financial, credibility and data
loss, and increasingly the endangerment of human lives.
I don't want to propose that testing will always prevent these situations.
There were probably testers present (and I'm sure often also security testers) when
such systems were created. I think that there was simply a general lack of
risk-awareness on these projects.
There are many tools and techniques from a pure technical point of view to harden the software in security context. Some of them have automated scans which crawl through your website and might discover the low hanging fruits of security weaknesses (ZAP, Burpsuite...), without much technical knowledge from the person operating it.
The more important aspect is however the mindset with which you approach the product. The tester is often the first person to discov…