Skip to main content

Heurism

I'm watching my son, a toddler, at play. He picks up his toy train, a hefty piece of wind-up fisher-price-esque technology, and hurls it at the water bottle. I'll not pass judgement - but suffice to say - the bottle is still standing - several other objects in the room are not. He reaches down with both arms and picks up the train again. He steps a bit further away, turns his back on the bottle, and slings it back over his shoulder. A few more similar attempts end in much the same result, Until finally the killer-move is identified: You stand point-blank over the bottle and drop/throw the train down onto the bottle.

A chip off the old block. I'm glad my son is having fun. But I'm interested - What's he thinking? No, that's not it... How is he thinking? What he's doing has strong parallels with what his father does for a living. I spend much of my time learning how [for example] a tool works or, maybe more often, how they don't work. If that takes the application of a 'surprise' heavy load well that just adds to the fun.

I think back to my recent reading and Rapid Software Testing course. If there's one word that sticks in my mind from both it's: 'Heuristic'. So is he applying heuristics? and if so which ones? He needs to know if he's hit the bottle with the train - that's more of a matter of observation. He clearly has a hypothesis that lobbing the train can 'take-down' that evian bottle (Which he generally disproves - clearly a fan of Popper) - but again thats not really a heuristic.

It's simpler than that. I looked up Heuristic in the dictionary and didn't find much clarification. However, I did notice the word: Heurism. "The educational practice or principle of training pupils to discover things for themselves." - Oxford English Dictionary. My son was learning for himself, he was gaining evidence for himself, empirically. He was building-up his first-hand experience. That's what I do! I can't give you much information until I actually use your system. Let me hurl a few keystrokes at the command line, and I'll give you back some real fact based information. Let me do it a few times, and I'll give you back even more information.

In fact that reminded me of a real technique I use when testing: Bug-compression. If I find a bug - lets say a user-path that has many commands or clicks, I spend a little time 'compressing' the steps - reducing the number of operations or clicks too just a few. This can be valuable in demonstrating that users could reach this 'failure state' more easily than it might at first appear. E.g.: The 'unlikely event' is now only three key presses away from the happy path.

This makes sense, My son's building the store of knowledge that firstly: he can use to generate his own heuristics and secondly: maybe apply the heuristics he's already learned. As testers we need to get into one of those feedback loops, where our actions are giving us more information that helps us find out even more. Get your hands & eyes on the controls, the logs, the database. There's a heuristic right there, built from hands-on experience: "Check the log files for error messages." It's fallible, but none the less, it's been a good way to find oddness and bugs so far.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The gamification of Software Testing

A while back, I sat in on a planning meeting. Many planning meetings slide awkwardly into a sort of ad-hoc technical analysis discussion, and this was no exception. With a little prompting, the team started to draw up what they wanted to build on a whiteboard.

The picture spoke its thousand words, and I could feel that the team now understood what needed to be done. The right questions were being asked, and initial development guesstimates were approaching common sense levels.

The discussion came around to testing, skipping over how they might test the feature, the team focused immediately on how long testing would take.

When probed as to how the testing would be performed? How we might find out what the team did wrong? Confused faces stared back at me. During our ensuing chat, I realised that they had been using BDD scenarios [only] as a metric of what testing needs to be done and when they are ready to ship. (Now I knew why I was hired to help)



There is nothing wrong with checking t…

Manumation, the worst best practice.

There is a pattern I see with many clients, often enough that I sought out a word to describe it: Manumation, A sort of well-meaning automation that usually requires frequent, extensive and expensive intervention to keep it 'working'.

You have probably seen it, the build server that needs a prod and a restart 'when things get a bit busy'. Or a deployment tool that, 'gets confused' and a 'test suite' that just needs another run or three.

The cause can be any number of the usual suspects - a corporate standard tool warped 5 ways to make it fit what your team needs. A one-off script 'that manager' decided was an investment and needed to be re-used... A well-intended attempt to 'automate all the things' that achieved the opposite.

They result in a manually intensive - automated process, where your team is like a character in the movie Metropolis, fighting with levers all day, just to keep the lights on upstairs. Manual-automation, manumatio…

Scatter guns and muskets.

Many, Many years ago I worked at a startup called Lastminute.com (a European online travel company, back when a travel company didn't have to be online). For a while, I worked in what would now be described as a 'DevOps' team. A group of technical people with both programming and operational skills.

I was in a hybrid development/operations role, where I spent my time investigating and remedying production issues using my development, investigative and still nascent testing skills. It was a hectic job working long hours away from home. Finding myself overloaded with work, I quickly learned to be a little ruthless with my time when trying to figure out what was broken and what needed to be fixed.
One skill I picked up, was being able to distinguish whether I was researching a bug or trying to find a new bug. When researching, I would be changing one thing or removing something (etc) and seeing if that made the issue better or worse. When looking for bugs, I'd be casting…