Surely the point of testing is, erm, to test it. A lot of people seem to be betting their bonnets infested with bees on the matter.
I'm disappointed to not get it, but I was at the musical theatre under a train arch and deprived of signal, and if that weren't enough, a chirpy gent on the stage reminded us to switch our bloody phones off.
I'm trying to think of any event I have experienced in recent memory where such a warning might have been useful. It would have been nice to have known in advance of arrival when and where the M25 had started to melt a few years ago. It was chaotic and people were walking around the stationary traffic asking if anyone knew what was going on. If a nuclear strike is imminent, I guess I could head for the Cold War shelter a couple of miles away(it's a historic monument, so I'd need to pay at the door), or hide under the stairs. Of course some people have been flooded out of their homes, but I'd like to hear how a phone alert would improve their situation in reality. During the Irish troubles I got used to evacuations, etc.
The big problem is getting a message over in such a way as to avoid a panic. I cannot imagine that our current regime is remotely, sufficiently competent to achieve any such thing. In reality the only way to prepare people for emergencies is practice drills, like fire drills and other evacuation scenarios and it can only be done by competent people on site. Just watching the Sudan situation proves that.
In York they install anti-terrorist barriers to control entry and exit to streets. If there was any kind of panicked reaction by people in those areas and they attempted to pass the barriers in an undisciplined manner, people could easily be crushed. They aren't that easy to get through anyway.
If the whole country is under threat then mass gatherings are simply a bad idea. Having a public emergency alert isn't going to compensate for that.
So what is it for?