Skip to main content

Quality in a Jar

Its an oft chanted mantra that software quality can be 'baked in'. Like flour or eggs you just mix in the right ingredients and out comes perfection. If my wife and I were ever to take part in our own bake-off, then you'd soon see that hypothesis undermined. We'd both begin with the same ingredients, oven, spoons etc. My better half would no-doubt deliver another scrumptious banana cake and I - a new and interesting exterior wall sealant [not my intention].
Batteries and LEDs, but no quality.

The problems here are manifold, There's a Reification error, for quality is not a tangible entity (A favourite issue for Michael Bolton). There's the idea that once built software and its use is immutable. If you've ever had to use one of those unmaintained applications (typically a time sheet/billing system) thats gone to seed you'll agree that it hasn't exactly aged like fine Claret. But what's most naive is the assumption that the simple use of a tool or ingredient will make some thing better - it'll make the bugs go away and stay away.

People and consequently software is more complicated than that. A problem with a piece of software can be almost anything from an incorrect conditional operator, to the use of an incorrect language dialect  e.g.: I had the pleasure of testing some navigation/directions software, developed in the USA, as it was being 'tweaked' to work in the UK. A good example of an issue was an instruction along the lines of: "Take the off ramp, then rotary 1st exit". To a British English speaker that sounds more like instruction on how to skate-board while donning a wristwatch than how to navigate a junction (sorry 'intersection')

The tool, is just that, a tool and is nothing without the artisan's skill behind it. In testing, it is the testing skill involved that matters over the particular software tool or library installed.  To highlight the oddness of the proposition, Transplant the situation to another team member and see how it fits: Does the programmer with the most feature rich-IDE automatically produce the best code? or wider afield, Would you trust a bad doctor with space-age tools more than a skilled and experienced doctor and his judgement as to what tools and instruments to use?

Just adding a test tool, a Jar file or executable, and robotically implementing checks in its prescribed format does not automatically give you good software. Further-more, approaching a testing problem with the tool in-hand, biases you greatly as to what problems you are going to find as well as possibly miss-directing you away from the problems.

   "When all you have is a hammer, all problems start to look like nails." - Mark Twain

For example over-using Selenium or WATIR for testing a feature rich GUI is a common mistake. Many companies standardise on such a tool for GUI test automation. If your application is heavily GUI driven, then that's important to bear in mind. Your feature-changes are human user oriented - so testing could well benefit from well errh more 'human user' interaction.

The most powerful tools are your eyes, brain and hands. Let these take a look first, get an idea of where to apply the tools and what those tools might be. Don't expect that just installing that Jar will bring automatic improvements.

PS: You can learn more about those 'Sun Jars' here: http://www.comfycamping.co.uk/Gear/Lighting.aspx

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…