Skip to main content

Why so negative?

Have you ever had trouble explaining to a non-tester why you appear to be intent on breaking their software? It can be difficult to explain why it's important. So I thought a video might help...



If you want to read more about the scientific method, check out the hunky-dory hypothesis.

Comments

  1. It's an excellent point and a wonderful way of showing it, Pete. A few refinements:

    1) We don't break software; the software was broken when we got it.

    2) We don't create tests designed to cause failure; we create tests designed to expose the failures that are lurking.

    3) The illusion that the software wasn't broken and the illusion that we're creating failure are among the most important illusions we testers need to dispel.

    I'm delighted at the steady stream of excellent posts, and especially chuffed that it started to flow just after the Rapid Software Testing course in London. That was a rare group!

    ---Michael B.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Michael, Thank you for your support - and yes the RST course definitely helped motivate me! I recommend the course to testers, programmers and project managers!

    I agree with your main point - that the software is essentially broken before it reaches the tester. The tester finds out that these problems are present in the system, and reports them.

    1) In the blurb when I refer to breaking the software, I'm describing how the process appears to others. i.e.: "to a non-tester why you appear to be intent on breaking their..."
    I tend not to use the phrase myself, except lightheartedly.

    2&3) I'm not so sure about these... for example: a judgement, coding or configuration mistake was made before the system is examined by the tester - But the system may not 'fail' until we perform certain actions. By fail I'm thinking: Displeases or confuses user, performs slowly, crashes or loses data etc.

    The incident on the Silver Bridge springs to mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Bridge#Wreckage_analysis ) A contributing factor in the bridges 'failure' was a problem in the manufacture of a constituent part. Although this problem was in the system for many years, along with others such as a lack of redundancy, they did not 'fail' until December 15 1967.

    If we were testing such a system, might we not add higher than expected load in an attempt to 'cause a failure'?

    Though I can see that this engineering style language in a software setting is far from a perfect fit. Issues such as corrosion and decay don't apply. Though unplanned-for user load and change in usage do apply. I'm going to think about this...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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…