Educating Future Generations of Testers

Welcome to the Test Guild Automation Podcast where we all get together to learn more about automation and software testing with.

Your host, Joe Calantonio.

Hey, it's Joe. And welcome to another episode of the Test Guild Automation and Testing Podcast. Today we'll be talking with Simon all about education, future generation of testers. Simon heads up the core qa team at EasyJet. In his career he's worked in various roles across IT from C developer, Scrum Master Build Engineer before finally finding his passion in testing. He's worked in various domains like cybersecurity, gaming, gambling and now the airline industry. He loves finding ways to improve the testing process and ensuring products are released with the highest possible quality. He also loves coaching and mentoring his teams to be the best they can, enabling them to use all possible tools and skills to get their job done to the best of their ability. Simon is also a well known speaker and meetup organizer in the software testing world and also has been a really good advocate for companies to consider neurodiversity as part of their inclusion programs. I don't know much about that, so I'm really excited to have him on the show to talk about that. And he's one of the hosts of the Testing Peers podcast. As you can tell, he has a wealth of knowledge. Really excited to have him on the show today. You don't want to miss this episode. Check it out.

The Test Guild Automation Podcast is sponsored by the fantastic folks at Source Labs. Their cloud based test platform helps ensure your favorite mobile apps and websites work flawlessly on every browser, operating system and device. Get a free trial. Visit testguild.com sourcelabs and click on the exclusive Sponsor section to try it for free for 14 days. Check it out.

Hey Simon, welcome to the Guild.

Hey Joe, thanks for having me.

Awesome to have you. Before we get into Simon, is there anything I missed in your bio that you want the Guild to know more about?

No, I think you covered everything. It sounds quite a list when you read it back like that, but yeah, I think you covered it all.

Yeah, it's pretty awesome actually. Reading your bio, I found out things I didn't know about you. Like you actually did cybersecurity. You've been in a lot of different areas, so really excited to get your insight into these and how it actually colors your view of how testers can grow within their organizations and what organizations could do to actually help them grow. I guess. Before we take a look into how to improve or enhance testers in their current situation, what is the current state of tech teams that you find most companies.

So I still think there's a big play where test people fall into testing. People aren't necessarily naturally. They don't naturally decide to become testers at the start. It's still quite commonplace for you speak to testers within teams and they had come from the support teams or they've come from other business areas into the organization and then got moved into testing from there. I still think there's a misunderstanding of what testing involves from a lot of organization perspectives. I still think there's this understanding that testing only happens at the end of a project. Certainly in my experience of places, there's definitely been this thought process that we don't need to involve any testers in any projects until we've finished all the development and then they can just do their testing and we can get it out the door. I know that's not the case everywhere, but scary to see how many places still think with that mindset. So I think we have to do a lot to promote what testing involves and what quality is to enable us to be able to do what we need to do within these organizations.

Yeah, you know, I guess I've been in the industry over 20 years. I actually started in doing tech support and then found myself into doing a career in QA and testing. So why do you think there's not more of an awareness of testing, especially of newer folks coming in from university or college? Are they still not incorporating testing as part of their core engineering curriculum or is it just usually hands on? Hey, by the way, you're going to be a tester and you have to learn as you go.

Yeah, I think it's definitely the latter. I think I did some research about three, four years ago and I've been trying to keep on top of the research since. Where I researched the top 25 universities in the UK to see what testing topics they covered as part of the core computer science or software engineering syllabuses. And I think out of the top 25 universities, only two had any dedicated module on testing. So it's still very rare that students come out of university with any real core knowledge of what testing involves. They might cover some unit testing as part of a software engineering or software development module. They'll learn six or seven different coding languages. I certainly did everything from assembly language to C to Cobol to Pascal to Java to Python. All these different languages will be taught as part of a three year syllabus. But there isn't as much focus on how can we make this testing skill set effective as well. So that's a big gap and that's certainly something I found when I've interviewed graduates or I've gone into schools or universities to try and talk about testing. I actually got invited back to my university to do a careers talk. And then when I discussed what I was working in, when I was working in qa, they suddenly decided that they didn't want me to do a careers talk. They wanted to do a special subject area conversation, which put me off wanting to do the talk because it felt like we were being boxed into this advanced, special secret source type skill rather than a core skill within the software world.

Oh yeah, that's really interesting. What I think is interesting too is I don't know if this is still true. You came from a C developer background, so to be able to do development in C, you need to have some skills. But you fell in love with testing and you became a tester. What I usually see, and like I used to see, I don't know if it's still the case, if you've seen it is a lot of people almost treat testing as like a stepping stone, like I'll do testing to work my way up to be a developer, where you did the opposite. So is that still a trend and do you know why that might be?

I think the way you mentioned is definitely still a trend. I think there's definitely still a lot of that. What happened with me was this is when I was in the cybersecurity world. I joined an engineering team that was developing the core scanning functionality for an anti malware product and I was 10 years the junior of all the other developers in the team. So although I got to learn a lot of incredible knowledge that I wouldn't have got to learn from a very skilled team, I didn't feel I got the rubber, the green as far as the features to develop. So I'd get the small bug fixes because they knew I could do those rather than doing the big features. So I never really felt like I got the rubber, the green and then the sprint teams, we were doing Scrum to some level and I just started volunteering for testing tasks to try and sort of vary the work I was looking at and just found I enjoyed that side of the work more. And although we were doing Scrum, there was still very much a throw it over the wall to the testers, they'll do their testing. We were doing automation at that point. We were writing a lot of stuff in Perl. We had a big Perl framework with Thousands of tests. Not saying it was the most effective test automation, but it was, it did the job and we got the results we needed from the test runs. We did. But, you know, I learned the testing mindset, I learned the skills needed to write the simple automation scripts and I just fell in love with that whole trying to prove the quality of the system, trying to ensure that we were delivering the best possible quality, asking the difficult questions early so that we can make sure we embed quality into the features rather than being on the side of the fence of just developing the code. And I say just in the, it's not meant in a detrimental sense there at all. But yeah, rather than developing the code, I was, I enjoyed being involved in the testing side.

Nice. So, you know, at a really basic level, I'm always hard pressed to find out nowadays in 2020 with agile and everything, what is a tester? And do you still see it as a separate role or. I mean, the mindset you just described to me sounds like everyone on the team should be doing that, but I don't know if that's like unrealistic. I mean, where do you see tester and the testing role going in 2020 and beyond as more and more teams try to release software quicker, faster, more agile?

In my experience, I've not worked in somewhere that's been highly pure agile or pure DevOps. I've always worked in organizations where there's been a dedicated test team and dedicated testers working on the products. And in my experience, if they're not in this highly agile world, then there's definitely still a need for those expertise as a separate role because the mindset hasn't been shifted enough to ensure that everyone on the team is thinking the same way. But I do think that there is definitely, as we move forward and as more people ADopt Agile and DevOps and whatever the next methodology may be, the collaborative nature nature of working needs to continue to grow. We need to ensure that people that have the testing mindset can do their fair share of the development side as well. And you do get this team, you do get the collaborative team model. Having said that, I do still think that there is a need for those testing mindsets that enable us to do exploratory testing and investigative testing alongside developing the automation and other things. So if that means we need to have a test specialist in the team, then I still think there's a role for that equally, that could be a test coach or a quality coach, that's coaching the overall team and pushing things through that way. But I definitely think there's still a need for a testing, focused mind within the teams.

So we mentioned teams a few times. I think testing is a critical skill that the team needs to have. So what do you think are some qualities of what makes a great team?

So I think a great team needs to have a diversity of mind and I think there needs to be people that think in different ways within a great team. I think if you have a team of people that are all thinking the same way, doing the same thing, then you're not possibly exploring the full context of a product. You're going to bring biases in that won't be naturally found because you're all thinking the same way. So by having that diversity of mind and diversity of people across the team, you're going to ensure that those biases get caught and more testing can be done to prove the quality of the system. And when I say neurodiversity, I talk I mean about looking at people with conditions such as adhd, autism, dyslexia. Although it may be seen as a negative, there's a lot of positives these people can bring to a team as well. And I certainly don't see these people as negative. Neurodiversity to me means that they think outside the box. They're not constrained in the same way that other people maybe, and they can just bring a different thought process, a different mindset to teams I've certainly hired. One of the best tester hires I ever made was someone who openly admitted in his interview that he had ADHD and that he controlled it by multitasking. So having two or three things on the go at the same time when he's working and he'd be an absolute incredible exploratory tester, but at the same time he'd be researching new techniques or he'd be writing up some documentation as well. And he was able to find defects that other people in the team couldn't even think about finding because his mindset, he just questioned stuff in different ways and he just disrupted the day to day normality of how the team worked because he came up with new ideas, he'd suggest new ways of thinking. And I think there's an important part for us to be open with what kind of people we have in our teams and to not just look at the standard skill sets or not just look at everyone needs to have the same list of skills, but actually looking at what would a new person add to the team rather than fit in with what we currently have.

So that's interesting. I guess it gets kind of tricky, though, like, how do you know if someone has neurodiversity? Because I would think it'd be almost illegal to say, hey, do you have hdhd? You know what I mean? Or do you have autism? I mean, how do you know that? How do you even know to hire for that, like, without asking them? Does that make sense?

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, there's a lot of things at play at the moment to try and open up the market to these neurodiverse individuals. At the moment, a lot of them, either they're ashamed of their condition and they don't want to share it, they don't want to discuss it, or they look at traditional job specs and they see a whole list of things that you require to do the role. And if they don't tick one or two of the boxes, they won't apply for them. So it's about opening the market to all individuals. And at the end of the day, you have to hire the person that's best for those roles in the moment that you're hiring, but it's just enabling that pool to be slightly wider because you're accessing other markets. And there's a few organizations at the moment that are specifically looking at hiring autistic individuals. Microsoft have a program, IBM have a program. BBC in the UK have a program as well where they're looking to hire neurodiverse individuals and put them in the teams to try and grow these teams into a more effective place. So you're right. You can't openly, explicitly say, I want to hire someone with a neurodiverse condition, but you can find ways to open the market subtly up to them so that they don't feel like they're out of place applying for the roles. And then it's about also adapting your hiring techniques, your interview techniques, to enable someone to feel comfortable in those interviews. So I've in the past had someone with autism in an interview where they've said they can't look at me in the face, they need to be turned away, which is, you know, it's in the moment. You're thinking, okay, that's fine, I can work with that. And actually, just because they're not focused on your eye contact, that doesn't mean they can't express themselves in the same way. So there is a lot of ways in which we can adapt our hiring techniques to enable more people to feel comfortable and to not stick to these traditional. We're going to do a test. We're going to do a three person interview panel, we're going to have a technical interview, we're going to have person interview and it's looking at ways to how we can change that to ensure that we're still being fair to all candidates but we're actually opening it up to more people to be able to feel comfortable in those circumstances.

So I don't mean to keep diving into this. I think it's a really interesting point I haven't heard before. So as a hiring person or someone in charge of hiring, I could see that being a good goal. How do you introduce it to a team though? To keep the team open minded, to embrace it as well. Because I don't think this is neurodiversity but I am an extreme introvert. I hate open offices and having to come into the office and do team building stuff. But I mean some teams like that's what you have to do to be part of the team. But if you have someone like that's really autistic, maybe they're not comfortable that way. Does that influence the team's decision of who they accept within the team?

I think yeah. I mean there's obviously discussions to be had and it's. At the end of the day you don't want that person to feel special. You don't want that person to feel like being held on a pedestal above everyone else. You need to find a way of making the team gel together to support each other. And that really comes to having an open minded culture, having a collaborative culture, having a servant leadership type leader in place that can help adapt his style to support his or her style to adapt to support everybody in the team. Some people will look for the metaphorical arm around their shoulders to encourage them. Other people want straight talking and it's just about molding your team to ensure that everyone feels that they're supported in the right way and that they feel that they can support each other. That it's open conversations. And don't get me wrong, it's not easy, it's not straightforward. There will be questions asked especially early on in this process where people are why are we able to do that for them? But I wasn't allowed to do that three months ago or things like this. And it's, it's going to be a learning curve to get people to a place where companies feel they can be advertised as neurodiverse, supportive of neurodiverse conditions because there is still a lot of people that feel they can't broadcast their neurodiversity because they don't feel like they would be accepted or they feel like they would be boxed into a particular role because that's all they can do because of their condition. And There's a website, Medecoded.com which talks about which actually all these people, there's a lot of people with neurodiversity that blog on there anonymously to say how they felt about interview processes, how they felt about working in the workplace and how they were treated differently. And it's really eye opening to see and it makes me, and I'm sure it makes others as well think, wow, we need to change the dynamics here. We need to look at how we can adapt the situation differently.

Absolutely. And I think this all ties into what you call nurturing people. You have a whole section on this in your session and the first thing you think is treat everyone as individuals. So it may be someone has neurodiversity, someone may have something else. I mean, but everyone is an individual rather than just throwing them in as like cogs within the machine. It sounds like.

Absolutely, yeah. I mean there is that element of you want the team to be a well oiled machine, but it's just about working out how they all work together and giving the team the chance to do that for themselves. Like empower the team to find that way to work effectively. And the example I always go back to as well is people that may have a neurodiverse condition will look at a job spec and think, well, okay, I can do the coding part. I'm excellent at coding. I could do that almost with my eyes closed. But the idea of presentations or the idea of doing this part of the role really scares me. I don't feel comfortable doing it well actually, let's be more open and think, okay, you could be a real benefit to the team because you can do A, but B, the rest of the team are going to work. We're going to redefine people's scope of roles. And actually there's people in the team that are absolutely brilliant at doing those kind of presentations and it can become part of their role as well. And yes, it is an open conversation. It's getting the team together to collaborate and bring up these ideas. It's not forcing these things on the team because I don't feel a culture can grow and the team won't feel nurtured if you're forcing things on them. If you enable the team to pull together and define the ways of working themselves with your input and support, then you'll find a much more organic way of working, will go forward and a much more positive experience for everyone in the team.

So how do you advise companies, maybe to help support individuals or personal development? Are there ways companies can help support this type of showing everyone's an individual and then supporting their personal growth within the company or within their role?

I think there's definitely. Companies need to be more open to not expect everyone to work in the same way, not expect everyone to fit inside the box. And especially for bigger companies, that's going to be a lot harder to adapt. So I do think there needs to be certain leaders of teams need to think about how they look after their teams, how they support their teams, how they find ways to enable them, encourage them to do things such as free online courses. If there's particular things they want that they're interested in, allow them to grow in a supportive manner with your backing. And also at the same time, organizations can work with coaches for these neurodiverse conditions. There's a few people out certainly in the uk that go in and advising companies at the moment to look at neurodiversity and how they can incorporate these different ways of working into their organizations. So it's an educational thing. And I think there are people out there that can help educate and bring support into organisations so that they're not looking at this as a. We don't want to change the way we're working, we're only hiring the same kind of people we've always hired and actually opening that up to enable different minds to come in and build that effective team.

So this might be a pessimistic question. So it seems like this is great. I mean, our company should be doing this, but when the economy is bad and they have a large pool of people to draw from, I mean, do they only have all these perks in these type of diversity programs when it's hard to get people to join them? Or is it, I don't know if that makes sense. Or is it only when the economy is really booming and they have to really fight for resources among each individual company that they start throwing in, oh, personal development and all these perks and we embrace all this. Does that make sense?

Yeah, it does. And I totally hear what you're saying, because my experience before I dived into this neurodiversity, before I dived into this neurodiversity campaign, of pushing it forward, my experience with diversity programs was particularly around gender. A lot of big companies would run this, we need to hire More women. Therefore, we're going to offer double the referral fee if we manage to hire a successful female into the roles. Which I think comes back to the point of, yes, we want more women in the organisations, yes, we're more diverse than people in the organisations, but there has to be a way around it, that it's fair for all of them and not just targeting employment at particulars. Because like you say at the moment, in an environment where there's a lot of people on the market because companies have had to let go due to the pandemic, we need to find a way to hire the best people for the roles. But that means we need to consider everyone that's available. And there isn't an easy fix, there isn't an easy answer for that. It's just companies have to be more open minded to who's going to be. And I go back to the phrase that actually comes from one of my co hosts of the testing peers, David. It's all about culture ads rather than culture fit and finding a way to incorporate that in our hiring process. Sorry, I've not really answered that very well.

Well, you know, it's a hard answer. I don't know if you can answer it. It's the need, you know, just the environment we're in. I guess so I guess. How can companies build a culture though, that I don't even know if that's possible. Just build a culture like bake into that culture where it just draws the right people, you know, it doesn't repel certain groups or certain neurodiversity folks.

Yeah, I think it starts with if you build a culture that everyone loves being part of it, they're gonna want to shout about it and get other people that they know involved. And that's always a good starting point. If you can get to a place where people are so happy to work for you that they'll, they'll refer their friends or refer people they know because it's a supportive culture that can open doors that way. But with neurodiversity as well, it's about ensuring that those doors are open to those other organizations, such as charities like National Autistic Society. They are doing a lot of work to try and get people with autism into organizations. It's almost about engaging them and making them aware of the jobs that are available so that they can push it out to their markets as well. Rather than just the standard job markets that we have, such as LinkedIn and Glassdoor and others. There sometimes need to be a bit More work on the organisation side to make sure they're opening the pool up to all the areas they need to open up to.

So this all ties in. I think you have another section in your talk on growing tech teams of tomorrow. Attracting people. So how can you raise awareness then, for attracting people that is more diverse? It's not just one type of person or one type of employee.

I think it comes down to how we look at the ways we advertise for roles, how we push for people to be hired. One of my bugbears at the moment is, and looking at the job market at present, there's a lot of job specs that are looking for unicorns. They're looking for absolutely every coding language, every technology, every possible methodology, et cetera, et cetera. And the job spec. The list of must haves is 20, 30, 40 bullet points long. And this puts a lot of people off. I think we need to redesign the way that we look at job specs and the way we advertise for roles and actually look at what is this problem we're trying to solve with this role. Anything on top of that can be an extra. Anything on top of that is the chance for somebody that's got some different skills to come into the organization and almost mold the role into something that's for them. So it's reducing the job specs down to the core problem we're trying to resolve, whether that be we need a developer in a certain coding language to come in and develop automation, or we need someone to develop the code, or we need someone with exploratory testing knowledge, or we need a test manager, etc, etc, and then anything else that's not part of the core competencies for that role we leave open and we allow somebody to apply for those roles because they have those core skill sets, but naturally they've got these other skill sets that might be really useful, because sometimes I just think the job specs are getting too bloated. There's a lot of, especially with testing ones. Even if the role doesn't involve automation in any form, automation will be a line item on the job spec. And it's the other way around as well. If actually it's all automation, it's just writing test automation frameworks, there'll be a lot of other stuff on there as well, which actually will never be touched. And I just think if we strip it back to the core skills we need and talk about the culture of the company and what the company can offer you, as well as what you could offer for the role that looks a bit more attractive than being scared off by the list of bullet points that people will just measure themselves against. They've not got the skill set.

I mean, I totally agree, but I mean it sounds like a no brainer, like where are these bloated job specs coming from? Is it just HR driven and like they're just throwing words out there. I mean, I don't understand how we got to this place in time where that's the case.

I think there's a lot of templates that have been used over and over and over again that have not been assessed and reviewed. Each time there's a new role opened up, they'll just go back to the one time they hired a QA engineer from three years ago and use that spec again and maybe add a couple of line items on it without really reviewing it. And I certainly, from a hiring perspective, I like to be actively involved in defining that spec and ensuring that I feel comfortable and that it paints the picture of the person that I want to hire rather than going with a boilerplate template that actually doesn't really reflect what I need. So I think there is a push that whoever's the hiring manager needs to be actively involved in that job spec needs to define a list of bullet points of what they really need compared to what would be nice and then build it from there?

Absolutely. And I guess your last point was onboarding. They made me think like sometimes I know companies that are able to attract the right kind of talent, nice diverse talent pool, but then they have attrition, like they lose the talent and they don't know why. They're like, oh, we tried everything we can so it must be something else. So does onboarding play a role in this where once you attract the right talent, actually nurturing them and keeping them happy throughout their career is something that's neglected as well.

I think so. I've certainly experienced it myself in recent roles. I've gone through where you're in the door and you're handed a test strategy and sort of said go away and read that and then hit the ground running kind of thing. And you've not been introduced to anyone, you've not really had chance to meet the people you need to meet. I think there needs to be a, an onboarding process. Shouldn't be a day, shouldn't be a couple of days. It should be a drawn out plans window of we're going to give you time to digest all the new technologies, all the new processes we have in place here. That are new to you from before. We're going to give you a list of key people that you need to. So go and have coffee with or virtual coffee in the current scenarios to go and make yourself comfortable with. Learn how they work and we shouldn't be expecting huge things from new starters for the first, I would say for the first month really there should be enough time for them to get up to speed and anything they do produce in that time frame is a bonus. We really should be looking at ensuring they have everything they need. They've met the teams, they know what their role involves, they've understood the process that we currently work at. The expectations for their role have been set out. You've sat down and discussed stuff with your line manager around what their expectations for you are and what you can do within 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, whatever you. But that should be a collaborative thing of you and them working together so that people have a set thing to work towards and then it's allowing them to grow in the organization, giving them chance to feel the culture and be part of the team. And I've just, I've just seen too many examples where we've put all this. Companies have put all this effort into hiring someone and then they start day one and they're almost left to their own devices and then they. Then the company wonders why after two weeks they've decided to leave. So it just. There isn't a set and fast way of doing that. But I think it needs to be more planned out. There needs to be a, you know, almost. I go back to my graduate scheme that I did when I went to the cybersecurity company. My onboarding was six months. I had two month placements in three different teams and it was all documented in this ring binded folder for me of what I do for the first two months, who I'd be interacting with, what code I'd be looking at, what product it was I was working with and then there'd be a sort of sessions for me to ask questions and get one to ones with different people. And that was all panned out for me. And actually that was the best thing they could have done because it enabled me to meet and learn from more people within the organization than anyone in the other teams that I worked in. No one else had had the opportunity to go and meet people from the different organizations. And being a big corporate organization, there was lots of teams that people that hadn't met each other even in the same office when we were on three floors, they hadn't met each other, they'd had no reason to meet each other. But me having done this six month graduate scheme, I was able to bring people together because I knew people in different teams because I'd had a chance to meet them all. So just spending time learning about the organization and understanding where you can add quality or add the most benefit is really useful.

Yeah, 100%. So, Simon, you know, I think education people becoming leaders and self investing in their education is really critical and I think podcasts and blogs are part of that. And I believe you actually have your own podcast as well called Testing Peers. Could you just give a little shout out what that's about? So folks that are listening maybe want to check that out as well?

Yeah. So there's four of us, myself, Chris, Russell and David. We're all test managers or test leaders in some form within organizations. And actually never. I've only met Chris. I've never actually met the other two. And it's the same with different combinations of the others as well. Chris really brought us all together because he met us all at different points. I met Chris at a conference where I was doing my make a tester talk about universities and he brought us all together. There was originally 12 or 13 of us that he contacted about bringing people together that could hold each other accountable from a testing perspective, who maybe didn't have peers within their own organization they could turn to or work with. So he built this. Originally it was a WhatsApp group, then it turned into a Slack group and then there was four of us that were kind of the key people that were involved that decided actually we could make this into a podcast. We toyed with a blog and then we've actually gone with the podcast option. And really what it is is we choose topics that are either testing or leadership related and discuss that between the four of us. We've just released episode 10 today, the 14th of September. We released that on testing in 2030. And what we think will have changed both from a testing perspective and also from a leadership perspective. We've talked about topics such as one to ones and hiring and cognitive bias passion. And we've got a whole long list of possibilities for future episodes as well. So yeah, it's just four of us talking for 20 minutes, half an hour about random testing or leadership topics. But the dynamic of the four of us, we think works really well. And it seems to be going quite well so far. Not quite at the million downloads that you've got with yours though.

Joe, I don't know about that. Very cool. Yeah, so folks can definitely check that out@testingpeers.com there'll actually be a link for that in the show notes as well. Okay Simon, before we go, is there one piece of actual advice you can give to someone to help them with their diversity hiring efforts and what's the best way to find or contact you?

My one bit advice would be be open minded and explore all options and really think about how best to open the market, open the opportunities up to all possible candidates. And as far as contacting me, it's ipryor on Twitter, I'm on LinkedIn, I've got my own blog, Simon Pryor.uk and yeah, testing peers as well. So reach out to us on that as well. But yeah, happy to be contacted.

Thank you Simon for your testing awesomeness. For the examin of value we covered in this episode, head on over to testguild.com a324 and while you're there, make sure to click on the Try it for free Today link under the Exclusive Sponsors section to learn all about Sauce Labs awesome products and services. And if you really want to find a way to help accelerate your career, I really believe you need to start embracing security testing as part of your testing toolkit as well if you want to learn how to stay employable within 2020 and beyond. I think having security testing as a skill is a core competency you're going to need in the future. So to really scale yourself up to learn more about it, I have a Tester Focus Online conference dedicated to Security testing going on October 19th to the 20th. Register now to the biggest online conference in the world dedicated 100% to helping you specifically with software testing for a tester's point of view, head over to secureguild.com and register today. So that's it for this episode of the Test Guild Automation Podcast. I'm Joe and my mission is to help you succeed with creating end and full stack Automation awesomeness. As always, test everything and keep the good. Cheers.

Thanks for listening to the Test Guild Automation Podcast. Head on over to testguild.com for full show notes, amazing blog articles and online testing conferences. Don't forget to subscribe to the Guild to continue your testing journey.