Search Results

Search found 7814 results on 313 pages for 'agile learning'.

Page 41/313 | < Previous Page | 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  | Next Page >

  • What are the boundaries of the product owner in scrum?

    - by Saeed Neamati
    In another question, I asked about why I feel scrum turns active developers into passive developers, and it seems that the overall problem is not scrumy (related to scrum), and rather it's related to the bad implementation of scrum. So, here I have some questions about the scope of the responsibilities of PO (product owner) and the limitations he/she shouldn't pass. Should PO interfere the UI design, when there are designers at work in scrum team? (an example of this which has happened to us, is to replace checkboxes with a drop down list with two items, namely, yes and no; or to make some boxes larger, or to left-align some content instead of centering them on the page, or stuff like that). If yeah, to what extent? Colors? Layout? Should PO interfere in Design and architecture of coding? This hasn't happened to us yet, but I'm really curious about the boundaries. For example does PO has the right to change the platform (moving from ASP.NET MVC to PHP, or something like that), or choosing the count of servers (tier architecture), etc. Should PO interfere in validation mechanisms? For example, this field should be required, or we don't need to get this piece of information from user. Sometimes, analyzers and designers confirm that something can be handled behind the scene, like extracting the user profile info from another source, instead of asking for it in UI. How granular could/should PO get into the analysis and design? For example, a user story might be: "As a customer, I'd like to be able to buy new domains online". However, scrum team can implement this user story in a wizard of five steps, or in one single page. To which level PO should monitor, or govern, or supervise the technical analysis, design, and implementation? I asked these questions to judge whether our implementation is right or wrong?

    Read the article

  • Mscorlib mocking minus the attribute

    - by mehfuzh
    Mocking .net framework members (a.k.a. mscorlib) is always a daunting task. It’s the breed of static and final methods and full of surprises. Technically intercepting mscorlib members is completely different from other class libraries. This is the reason it is dealt differently. Generally, I prefer writing a wrapper around an mscorlib member (Ex. File.Delete(“abc.txt”)) and expose it via interface but that is not always an easy task if you already have years old codebase. While mocking mscorlib members first thing that comes to people’s mind is DateTime.Now. If you Google through, you will find tons of example dealing with just that. May be it’s the most important class that we can’t ignore and I will create an example using JustMock Q2 with the same. In Q2 2012, we just get rid of the MockClassAtrribute for mocking mscorlib members. JustMock is already attribute free for mocking class libraries. We radically think that vendor specific attributes only makes your code smelly and therefore decided the same for mscorlib. Now, I want to fake DateTime.Now for the following class: public class NestedDateTime { public DateTime GetDateTime() { return DateTime.Now; } } It is the simplest one that can be. The first thing here is that I tell JustMock “hey we have a DateTime.Now in NestedDateTime class that we want to mock”. To do so, during the test initialization I write this: .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } Mock.Replace(() => DateTime.Now).In<NestedDateTime>(x => x.GetDateTime());.csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } I can also define it for all the members in the class, but that’s just a waste of extra watts. Mock.Replace(() => DateTime.Now).In<NestedDateTime>(); Now question, why should I bother doing it? The answer is that I am not using attribute and with this approach, I can mock any framework members not just File, FileInfo or DateTime. Here to note that we already mock beyond the three but when nested around a complex class, JustMock was not intercepting it correctly. Therefore, we decided to get rid of the attribute altogether fixing the issue. Finally, I write my test as usual. [TestMethod] public void ShouldAssertMockingDateTimeFromNestedClass() { var expected = new DateTime(2000, 1, 1); Mock.Arrange(() => DateTime.Now).Returns(expected); Assert.Equal(new NestedDateTime().GetDateTime(), expected); } .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } That’s it, we are good. Now let me do the same for a random one, let’s say I want mock a member from DriveInfo: Mock.Replace<DriveInfo[]>(() => DriveInfo.GetDrives()).In<MsCorlibFixture>(x => x.ShouldReturnExpectedDriveWhenMocked()); Moving forward, I write my test: [TestMethod] public void ShouldReturnExpectedDriveWhenMocked() { Mock.Arrange(() => DriveInfo.GetDrives()).MustBeCalled(); DriveInfo.GetDrives(); Mock.Assert(()=> DriveInfo.GetDrives()); } .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } Here is one convention; you have to replace the mscorlib member before executing the target method that contains it. Here the call to DriveInfo is within the MsCorlibFixture therefore it should be defined during test initialization or before executing the test method. Hope this gives you the idea.

    Read the article

  • Requirements/issue tracker similar to online spreadsheet

    - by Maxim Eliseev
    Is there a requirements/issue tracker software which is similar to Google spreadsheet? We have Fogbugz but I find it more heavyweight and slow than a simple spreadsheet. Is there a Fogbugz alternative which is - fast - can show issues/requirements as a spreadsheet (at) and allows in-place editing - supports tree structures (where issue can have child issues)? It is required for a small project. There will be 2 developers and 1-2 other users. I guess that only one user will be actively maintaining it. UPDATE I do not say that a spreadsheet is better than Fogbugz or similar tools. In fact I am looking for a tool which is similar to Fogbugz and could replace a spreadsheet, but faster than Fogbugz and has an additional feature (table-like mode). I'd like to find a tool which can operate in a mode which looks like a table (one row per issue) but has a rich set features (similar to Fogbugs and JIRA). I find Fogbugz (and similar tools) inconvenient because I must enter the web form in order to edit anything. In-place editing (when issues are shown as a table) would be much faster.

    Read the article

  • Working with multiple interfaces on a single mock.

    - by mehfuzh
    Today , I will cover a very simple topic, which can be useful in cases we want to mock different interfaces on our expected mock object.  Our target interface is simple and it looks like:   public interface IFoo : IDisposable {     void Do(); } Now, as we can see that our target interface has implemented IDisposable and in normal cases if we have to implement it in class where language rules require use to implement that as well[no doubt about it] and whether or not there can be more complex cases, we want to ensure that rather having an extra call(..As()) or constructs to prepare it for us, we should do it in the simplest way possible. Therefore, keeping that in mind, first we create a mock of IFoo var foo = Mock.Create<IFooDispose>(); Then, as we are interested with IDisposable, we simply do: var iDisposable = foo as IDisposable;   Finally, we proceed with our existing mock code. Considering the current context, we I will check if the dispose method has invoked our mock code successfully.   bool called = false;   Mock.Arrange(() => iDisposable.Dispose()).DoInstead(() => called = true);     iDisposable.Dispose();   Assert.True(called);   Further, we assert our expectation as follows: Mock.Assert(() => iDisposable.Dispose(), Occurs.Once());   Hopefully that will help a bit and stay tuned. Enjoy!!

    Read the article

  • Is writing software in the absence of requirements a skill to possess or a situation I should avoid?

    - by Brian Reindel
    I find that some software developers are very adept at this, and often times are praised for their ability to deliver a working concept with abstract requirements. Frankly, this drives me crazy, and I don't like "making it up" as I go. I used to think this was problematic, but I've started to sense a shift, and I'm wondering if I need to adjust my thought (and programming) process when given very little direction. Should I begin to acquire this ability as a skill, or stick to the idea that requirement's gathering and business rules are the first priority?

    Read the article

  • What is 'work' in the Pomodoro Technique?

    - by Sachin Kainth
    I have just started to use Pomodoro today and I am trying to work out what I should and should not do during my 25 minute work time. For my 25 minute work stint I started to write some code and realised that I had done something similar in a related project so I opened that solution to copy and paste that existing code. Question is, is this allowed? Also, if during my 25 minutes I realise that there is an important work-related email that I need to send can I do that or should that wait for the next 25 minutes or the break. I am writing this question during my, now extended, 5 minute break. Is this work or is it a break? I really would appreciate some guidance as I really want to use Pomodoro to focus better on my work. Another thing that happened to me was that a Adobe AIR update alert came up on my desktop during the 25 minutes. Should I ignore such things until the break? Sachin

    Read the article

  • One-week release cycle: how do I make this feasible?

    - by Arkaaito
    At my company (3-yr-old web industry startup), we have frequent problems with the product team saying "aaaah this is a crisis patch it now!" (doesn't everybody?) This has an impact on the productivity (and morale) of engineering staff, self included. Management has spent some time thinking about how to reduce the frequency of these same-day requests and has come up with the solution that we are going to have a release every week. (Previously we'd been doing one every two weeks, which usually slipped by a couple of days or so.) There are 13 developers and 6 local / 9 offshore testers; the theory is that only 4 developers (and all testers) will work on even-numbered releases, unless a piece of work comes up that really requires some specific expertise from one of the other devs. Each cycle will contain two days of dev work and two days of QA work (plus 1 day of scoping / triage / ...). My questions are: (a) Does anyone have experience with this length of release cycle? (b) Has anyone heard of this length of release cycle even being attempted? (c) If (a) or (b), how on Earth do you make it work? (Any pitfalls to avoid, etc., are also appreciated.) (d) How can we minimize the damage if this effort fails?

    Read the article

  • How to guide stakeholder(s) not to get far from the scrum vision?

    - by Saeed Neamati
    Consider this scenario: Stakeholder(s): Let's build a web application to manage user's financial data. Scrum team: Ok, let's do it. . . . After 3 sprints Stakeholder(s): Let's also implement a mailing system, so that when user's financial status is not good, (s)he would be warned. Scrum team: Ok, it's not that hard. We'll do it. . . . After 5 sprints Stakholder(s): Let's become a mailing provider. Here, how should scrum team guide stakeholder to stay inside the scope of scrum vision? Maybe a more fundamental question is, should the at all? Update: Of course there is a product owner. But by scrum team I meant PO, SM, and Team.

    Read the article

  • How to handle estimates for programmers joining the team?

    - by Jordan
    Iteration has already started, new programmer joins the team, task X has already been estimated to be 30 hours by a different developer. What is the best practice in this situation? new developer runs with the given estimate (the idea being that any discrepancy will be corrected for when velocity is calculated?) new developer re-estimates task? (if so, what if it's significantly higher and no longer fits in the iteration?) throw our hands up and go back to waterfall? something else entirely?

    Read the article

  • What relationship do software Scrum or Lean have to industrial engineering concepts like theory of constraints?

    - by DeveloperDon
    In Scrum, work is delivered to customers through a series of sprints in which project work is time boxed to a fixed number of days or weeks, usually 30 days. In lean software development, the goal is to deliver as soon as possible, permitting early feedback for the next iteration. Both techniques stress the importance of workflow in which software work product does not accumulate in development awaiting release at some future date. Both permit new or refined requirements and feedback from QA and customers to be acted on with as little delay as possible based on priority. A few years ago I heard a lecture where the speaker talked briefly about a family of concepts from industrial engineering called theory of constraints. In the factory, they use an operations model based on three components: drum, buffer, and rope. The drum synchronizes work product as it flows through the system. Buffers that protect the system by holding output from one stage as it waits to be consumed by the next. The rope pulls product from one work station to the next. Historically, are these ideas part of the heritage of Scrum and Lean, or are they on a separate track? It we wanted to think about Scrum and Lean in terms of drum-buffer-rope, what are the parts? Drum = {daily scrum meeting, monthly release)? Buffer = {burn down list, source control system)? Rope = { daily meeting, constant integration server, monthly releases}? Industrial engineers define work flow in terms of different kinds of factories. I-Factories: straight pipeline. One input, one output. A-Factories: many inputs and one output. V-Factories: one input, many output products. T-Plants: many inputs, many outputs. If it applies, what kind of factory is most like Scrum or Lean and why?

    Read the article

  • How can I get the business analysts more involved in BDD?

    - by Robert S.
    I am a proponent of Behavior Driven Development, mainly with Cucumber and RSpec, and at my current gig (a Microsoft shop) I am introducing SpecFlow as a tool to help with testing. I'd like to get the business analysts on my team involved in writing the features and scenarios, but they are put off by the "technical" aspect of it, meaning creating the files in Visual Studio (or even having Visual Studio on their machines). They want to know if we can put all the scenarios for a feature in Jira. What I'm looking for is suggestions for a workflow that will work well with BA types that are accustomed to project management/work tracking tools like Jira (we also use Greenhopper).

    Read the article

  • Running Objects – Associations and Relationships

    - by edurdias
    After the introduction to the Running Objects with the tutorial Movie Database in 2 Minutes (available here), I would like to demonstrate how Running Objects interprets the Associations where we will cover: Direct Association – A reference to another complex object. Aggregation – A collection of another complex object. For those coming with a database perspective, by demonstrating these associations we will also exemplify the underline relationships such as 1 to Many and Many to Many relationships...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Code review versus pair programming

    - by mericano1
    I was wondering what is the general idea about code review and pair programming. I do have my own opinion but I'd like to hear from somebody else as well. Here are a few questions, please give me your opinion even on some of the point First of all are you aware of way to measure the effectiveness of this practices? Do you think that if you pair program, code reviews are not necessary or it's still good to have them both? Do you think anybody can do code review or maybe is better done by seniors only? In terms of productivity do you think it suffers from pairing all the times or you will eventually get in back in the long run?

    Read the article

  • Requesting quality analysis test cases up front of implementation/change

    - by arin
    Recently I have been assigned to work on a major requirement that falls between a change request and an improvement. The previous implementation was done (badly) by a senior developer that left the company and did so without leaving a trace of documentation. Here were my initial steps to approach this problem: Considering that the release date was fast approaching and there was no time for slip-ups, I initially asked if the requirement was a "must have". Since the requirement helped the product significantly in terms of usability, the answer was "If possible, yes". Knowing the wide-spread use and affects of this requirement, had it come to a point where the requirement could not be finished prior to release, I asked if it would be a viable option to thrash the current state and revert back to the state prior to the ex-senior implementation. The answer was "Most likely: no". Understanding that the requirement was coming from the higher management, and due to the complexity of it, I asked all usability test cases to be written prior to the implementation (by QA) and given to me, to aid me in the comprehension of this task. This was a big no-no for the folks at the management as they failed to understand this approach. Knowing that I had to insist on my request and the responsibility of this requirement, I insisted and have fallen out of favor with some of the folks, leaving me in a state of "baffledness". Basically, I was trying a test-driven approach to a high-risk, high-complexity and must-have requirement and trying to be safe rather than sorry. Is this approach wrong or have I approached it incorrectly? P.S.: The change request/improvement was cancelled and the implementation was reverted back to the prior state due to the complexity of the problem and lack of time. This only happened after a 2 hour long meeting with other seniors in order to convince the aforementioned folks.

    Read the article

  • How do bug reports factor in to a sprint?

    - by Mark Ingram
    I've been reading up on Scrum recently. From my understanding, a meeting is held before the sprint starts, to decide what gets moved from the product backlog to the upcoming sprint backlog. Once a feature is completed in the current sprint, it will go into the "Ready to QA" bucket, and it's at this point that I'm getting confused. Do bug reports go back into the product backlog? I assume they can't go back into the sprint backlog as we've already decided what work will be done for this cycle? What happens when QA finds a bug? Where does it go?

    Read the article

  • Naming your unit tests

    - by kerry
    When you create a test for your class, what kind of naming convention do you use for the tests? How thorough are your tests? I have lately switched from the conventional camel case test names to lower case letters with underscores. I have found this increases the readability and causes me to write better tests. A simple utility class: public class ArrayUtils { public static T[] gimmeASlice(T[] anArray, Integer start, Integer end) { // implementation (feeling lazy today) } } I have seen some people who would write a test like this: public class ArrayUtilsTest { @Test public void testGimmeASliceMethod() { // do some tests } } A more thorough and readable test would be: public class ArrayUtilsTest { @Test public void gimmeASlice_returns_appropriate_slice() { // ... } @Test public void gimmeASlice_throws_NullPointerException_when_passed_null() { // ... } @Test public void gimmeASlice_returns_end_of_array_when_slice_is_partly_out_of_bounds() { // ... } @Test public void gimmeASlice_returns_empty_array_when_slice_is_completely_out_of_bounds() { // ... } } Looking at this test, you have no doubt what the method is supposed to do. And, when one fails, you will know exactly what the issue is.

    Read the article

  • Creating Multiple Queries for Running Objects

    - by edurdias
    Running Objects combines the power of LINQ with Metadata definition to let you leverage multiples perspectives of your queries of objects. By default, RO brings all the objects in natural order of insertion and including all the visible properties of your class. In this post, we will understand how the QueryAttribute class is structured and how to make use of it. The QueryAttribute class This class is the responsible to specify all the possible perspectives of a list of objects. In other words, is...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Expected time for an CakePHP MVC form/controller and db make up

    - by hephestos
    I would like to know, what is an average time for building a form in MVC pattern with for example CakePHP. I build 8 functions, two of them do custom queries, return json data, split them, expand them in a model in memory and delivers to the view. Those are three queries if you consider and an array to feed view for making some combo box. Why? all these, because I have data from json and I split them in order to make row of data like a table. Like that I changed a bit the edit.ctp but not a lot. And I created a javascript outside, with three functions. One collects data the other upon a change of a combo returnes the selected values, and does also some redirection flow. All this, in average how much time should it take ?

    Read the article

  • Testing Workflows &ndash; Test-First

    - by Timothy Klenke
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/TimothyK/archive/2014/05/30/testing-workflows-ndash-test-first.aspxThis is the second of two posts on some common strategies for approaching the job of writing tests.  The previous post covered test-after workflows where as this will focus on test-first.  Each workflow presented is a method of attack for adding tests to a project.  The more tools in your tool belt the better.  So here is a partial list of some test-first methodologies. Ping Pong Ping Pong is a methodology commonly used in pair programing.  One developer will write a new failing test.  Then they hand the keyboard to their partner.  The partner writes the production code to get the test passing.  The partner then writes the next test before passing the keyboard back to the original developer. The reasoning behind this testing methodology is to facilitate pair programming.  That is to say that this testing methodology shares all the benefits of pair programming, including ensuring multiple team members are familiar with the code base (i.e. low bus number). Test Blazer Test Blazing, in some respects, is also a pairing strategy.  The developers don’t work side by side on the same task at the same time.  Instead one developer is dedicated to writing tests at their own desk.  They write failing test after failing test, never touching the production code.  With these tests they are defining the specification for the system.  The developer most familiar with the specifications would be assigned this task. The next day or later in the same day another developer fetches the latest test suite.  Their job is to write the production code to get those tests passing.  Once all the tests pass they fetch from source control the latest version of the test project to get the newer tests. This methodology has some of the benefits of pair programming, namely lowering the bus number.  This can be good way adding an extra developer to a project without slowing it down too much.  The production coder isn’t slowed down writing tests.  The tests are in another project from the production code, so there shouldn’t be any merge conflicts despite two developers working on the same solution. This methodology is also a good test for the tests.  Can another developer figure out what system should do just by reading the tests?  This question will be answered as the production coder works there way through the test blazer’s tests. Test Driven Development (TDD) TDD is a highly disciplined practice that calls for a new test and an new production code to be written every few minutes.  There are strict rules for when you should be writing test or production code.  You start by writing a failing (red) test, then write the simplest production code possible to get the code working (green), then you clean up the code (refactor).  This is known as the red-green-refactor cycle. The goal of TDD isn’t the creation of a suite of tests, however that is an advantageous side effect.  The real goal of TDD is to follow a practice that yields a better design.  The practice is meant to push the design toward small, decoupled, modularized components.  This is generally considered a better design that large, highly coupled ball of mud. TDD accomplishes this through the refactoring cycle.  Refactoring is only possible to do safely when tests are in place.  In order to use TDD developers must be trained in how to look for and repair code smells in the system.  Through repairing these sections of smelly code (i.e. a refactoring) the design of the system emerges. For further information on TDD, I highly recommend the series “Is TDD Dead?”.  It discusses its pros and cons and when it is best used. Acceptance Test Driven Development (ATDD) Whereas TDD focuses on small unit tests that concentrate on a small piece of the system, Acceptance Tests focuses on the larger integrated environment.  Acceptance Tests usually correspond to user stories, which come directly from the customer. The unit tests focus on the inputs and outputs of smaller parts of the system, which are too low level to be of interest to the customer. ATDD generally uses the same tools as TDD.  However, ATDD uses fewer mocks and test doubles than TDD. ATDD often complements TDD; they aren’t competing methods.  A full test suite will usually consist of a large number of unit (created via TDD) tests and a smaller number of acceptance tests. Behaviour Driven Development (BDD) BDD is more about audience than workflow.  BDD pushes the testing realm out towards the client.  Developers, managers and the client all work together to define the tests. Typically different tooling is used for BDD than acceptance and unit testing.  This is done because the audience is not just developers.  Tools using the Gherkin family of languages allow for test scenarios to be described in an English format.  Other tools such as MSpec or FitNesse also strive for highly readable behaviour driven test suites. Because these tests are public facing (viewable by people outside the development team), the terminology usually changes.  You can’t get away with the same technobabble you can with unit tests written in a programming language that only developers understand.  For starters, they usually aren’t called tests.  Usually they’re called “examples”, “behaviours”, “scenarios”, or “specifications”. This may seem like a very subtle difference, but I’ve seen this small terminology change have a huge impact on the acceptance of the process.  Many people have a bias that testing is something that comes at the end of a project.  When you say we need to define the tests at the start of the project many people will immediately give that a lower priority on the project schedule.  But if you say we need to define the specification or behaviour of the system before we can start, you’ll get more cooperation.   Keep these test-first and test-after workflows in your tool belt.  With them you’ll be able to find new opportunities to apply them.

    Read the article

  • Right mix of planning and programing on a new project

    - by WarrenFaith
    I am about to start a new project (a game, but thats unimportant). The basic idea is in my head but not all the details. I don't want to start programming without planning, but I am seriously fighting my urge to just do it. I want some planning before to prevent refactoring the whole app just because a new feature I could think of requires it. On the other hand, I don't want to plan multiple months (spare time) and start that because I have some fear that I will lose my motivation in this time. What I am looking for is a way of combining both without one dominating the other. Should I realize the project in the way of scrum? Should I creating user stories and then realize them? Should I work feature driven? (I have some experience in scrum and the classic "specification to code" way.)

    Read the article

  • Scrum - how to carry over a partially complete User Story to the next Sprint without skewing the backlog

    - by Nick
    We're using Scrum and occasionally find that we can't quite finish a User Story in the sprint in which it was planned. In true Scrum style, we ship the software anyway and consider including the User Story in the next sprint during the next Sprint Planning session. Given that the User Story we are carrying over is partially complete, how do we estimate for it correctly in the next Sprint Planning session? We have considered: a) Adjusting the number of Story Points down to reflect just the work which remains to complete the User Story. Unfortunately this will mess up reporting the Product Backlog. b) Close the partially-completed User Story and raise a new one to implement the remainder of that feature, which will have fewer Story Points. This will affect our ability to retrospectively see what we didn't complete in that sprint and seems a bit time consuming. c) Not bother with either a or b and continue to guess during Sprint Planning saying things like "Well that User Story may be X story points, but I know it's 95% finished so I'm sure we can fit it in."

    Read the article

  • Pair programming and unit testing

    - by TheSilverBullet
    My team follows the Scrum development cycle. We have received feedback that our unit testing coverage is not very good. A team member is suggesting the addition of an external testing team to assist the core team, but I feel this will backfire in a bad way. I am thinking of suggesting pair programming approach. I have a feeling that this should help the code be more "test-worthy" and soon the team can move to test driven development! What are the potential problems that might arise out of pair programming??

    Read the article

  • Is it a good idea to appoint one of the scrum team member or scrum master as Product Owner?

    - by Sandy
    Lately we had a project, in which client was busy touring. As usual scrum team was formed, management decided to appoint our analyst as Product owner since Client won’t be able to participate actively. Analyst was the one who worked closely with client for requirement analysis and specification drafting. Client doesn’t have the time to review first two releases. Everything went smoothly until, client saw third release; he wasn’t satisfied with some functionalities, and those was introduced by make shift Product Owner (our analyst). We were told to wait till design team finished mock-up of all pages and client checked each one and approved to continue working. Scrum team is there, but no sprints – we finished work almost like classic waterfall method. Is it a good idea to appoint scrum team member or master as product owner? Do we need to follow scrum in the absence of client/product owner participation?

    Read the article

  • What is the next promotion for a scrum master

    - by gnebar
    I'm currently a scrum master. I have been offered a promotion to a role that will allow me to have a wider impact. (more involved in company wide architectural decisions, possible secondment to kick start major projects, etc). The role and title of the job has yet to be decided but my company are open to guidance from me. I'm happy I can mould the role to suit me and the company but I'm unsure about the job title that fits this role. Technical Evangelist has been suggested but i'm not sure that is the correct title. I'm keen to proceed down the technical route. What would you suggest? What other roles do people take after scrum master/technical lead? EDIT: (I am aware that my current role is a mix of a technical lead and scrum master role, but that's how we do it in my company :) )

    Read the article

  • What level/format of access should be given to a client to the issue tracking system?

    - by dukeofgaming
    So, I used to think that it would be a good idea to give the customer access to the issue tracking system, but now I've seen that it creates less than ideal situations, like: Customer judging progress solely on ticket count Developers denied to add issues to avoid customer thinking that there is less progress Customer appointing people on their side to add issues who don't always do a good job (lots of duplicate issues, insufficient information to reproduce, and other things that distract people from doing their real job) However, I think customers should have access to some indicators or proof that there is progress being done, as well as a right to report bugs. So, what would be the ideal solution to this situation?, specially, getting out of or improving the first situation described?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  | Next Page >