Skip to main content


Recently, I was testing a new feature for a client, it had a known bug, that I'd found in prior testing, for which we'd figured-out a work-around. I was now performing further testing of the feature, hoping to discover more issues and figure out how it behaves a little better.

Does not apply to testers.
By this time, the work-around had become the norm - the expected mode of operation for the feature. Essentially this 'bug' had been found and was now fixed. Time had moved on. So what did I do? I ignored the work-around, applied my 'test load' to the system and activated the new feature. The failure was somewhat spectacular. A short while later the entire system was inoperable and a restart of several servers was required.

This was interesting. If I'd had expectations of what would happen, then it would of been for something simpler, less severe and closer to what had happened when I first found the bug that required the workaround.

After some investigation, I had found the likely cause. The system had a mis-configuration causing load to be incorrectly balanced (everything was being sent to [only] one of two servers). Speaking to the programmers, it became clear that the issue was caused by the code used in the work-around. Not only that, the work-around helped to mask the issue - because it protected the servers from the load!

In short, If I had used the work-around (that is: expected usage) I might never have seen the failure. I've seen this effect before and I suspect many testers have. By moving outside the 'safe operating parameters' you discover 'stuff'. You discover not only what can go wrong in the extremes, but what might happen in normal, run-of-the-mill usage. I'm deliberately saying 'stuff' here because we don't know what it's going to be. I am building new knowledge through experience.

Before I went on my 'voyage of discovery', I had certain preconceptions. I also had, it turns out, great gaps in my knowledge. By breaking the rules - or realising they don't apply and only hinder investigation - I put my self in a better position to learn more.

On a related note, some mainstream companies (OK... Apple) might benefit from some similar testing - outside the specifications. It might help them avoid negative publicity.


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 (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…