Skip to main content

Fishing for bugs.

You probably don't know, but I'm keen on fishing (Honest! Ok, maybe not, but bare with me...) I spend my free time, by the river bank or out on the sea searching for 'the big one'. The big catch that'll stand as tall as me, and feed my family for a week. My dream is to be the guy standing next to his prize-fish on that black and white picture behind the bar.

Over the years, I've become reasonably skilled. I usually find a fish or two when ever I'm out on the imaginary water. I've learned where they live, where they spawn, and of course where's best to catch them. For example, There's a little bend in the river upstream from my home, that has some great fishing spots. The overhanging rocks protect small fish from the predatory eyes of birds, and people. Of course where there's small fish, there's usually the odd big fish or two.

Ok, lets imagine that fishing had a profitable side too, and wasn't just a [fictitious] hobby. For example, People would hire me to help remove fish from their lakes. It seems that certain large predatory fish can be quite a nuisance, and land owners are often keen to get rid of them. Take last year for example, I was up in Scotland fishing for Pike on the request of a local land owner. The land owner had become nervous after hearing reports of the 6ft man eating Pike, and hoped to avoid any nasty fish related incidents on his estate.

Monday, the first day of my holiday - I set out onto the lake, in my small rib boat: "John Frum". After a hour or so I caught my first Pike. I also found a few smaller fish, but these were not really what I was looking for. But again, my experience reminded me that small fish, might mean big fish are also lurking down in the depths of the lake.

Each day I ventured out onto the lake and each day I found at least one big fish, and somedays two. By the end of the week, the land owner was pretty impressed with my exploits. He was happy that I'd found the fish, and seemed reassured that something had been done about the fish problem. I was happy in my role as 'fisherman' and it felt good to be helping people out.

But then something confusing happened, I found I was suddenly out of work. I was going to have to find another place to [make up stories about] fish for a living. The landowner had decided that he didn't need any more fishing done on the lake, and anyway he'd decided to open the lake to holiday makers the next day. I mentioned the problem with 'man eating pike' and how sometimes they didn't distinguish between who or what they were eating and how this could harm business. But to my surprise he replied "You spent all week fishing the lake, each day you caught a pike and on Thursday and Friday you caught 2 each day".

"Thats my point!" I replied, "aren't you worried?"

"How could I be worried? The fish are all gone, you found them all!"

As you can see, The land owner and I had different interpretations of the same results. I, the tester-turned-fisherman visualises a massive test space of 'lake'. A lake so vast that my puny rod and line only manage to catch fish after extensive practice and hours of work. I see my work as a sample, albeit an intelligent sample that helps find things other 'anglers' have missed. But I don't ever claim to have fished the entire lake clear. In fact the more I find, the more evidence I have of a problem, not less.

The landowner, see's the results differently. He's motivated to open to the public. A confirmation bias is helping him to interpret the results in a positive light. In his view, there are a finite number of problems, and we have removed some of those or at least we know where they live and what they are. The unknown issues, that we might expect given our sample's results, are less visible to him, because of the bias to interpret the results as desired, that is as 'good news'.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A h̶i̶t̶c̶h̶h̶i̶k̶e̶r̶'s̶ software tester's guide to randomised testing - Part 1

Mostly Harmless, I've talked and written about randomisation as a technique in software testing several times over the last few years. It's great to see people's eyes light up when they grok the concept and its potential. 
The idea that they can create random test data on the fly and pour this into the app step back and see what happens is exciting to people looking to find new blockers on their apps path to reliability.
But it's not long before a cloud appears in their sunny demeanour and they start to conceive of the possible pitfalls. Here are a few tips on how to avert the common apparent blockers. (Part 1) Problem: I've created loads of random numbers as input data, but how will I know the answer the software returns, is correct? - Do I have to re-implement the whole app logic in my test code?
Do you remember going to the fun-fair as a kid? Or maybe you recall taking your kids now as an adult? If so then you no doubt are familiar with the height restriction -…

Software development is in the Doldrums

"Don't get off the boat."

"Seriously, never get off the boat," The instructor said, leaning forward and looking at each of us in turn.

"But surely if it's sinking..." We reply, somewhat confused and slightly incredulous. We've seen Titanic, we think to ourselves, we know how this sea survival stuff works...

"OK" He concedes, If things get really bad, "Get on the life raft if you can step-up from the boat to the life raft".

"But, But... the yacht is like 37ft long, Do we want to wait until that whole boat is lower than the life-raft? When less than 1ft of the yacht is above the surface? Meanwhile all the time the life raft is just there... floating happily alongside."

"Pretty much, yes," he said nodding.


That was about 15 years ago. Not much has changed since. The reasons are manifold. Firstly, the yacht is a decent shelter. The thin plastic of a legal minimum life-raft isn't going to protect you fro…

Betting in Testing

“I’ve completed my testing of this feature, and I think it's ready to ship”
“Are you willing to bet on that?”
No, Don't worry, I’m not going to list various ways you could test the feature better or things you might have forgotten.
Instead, I recommend you to ask yourself that question next time you believe you are finished. 
Why? It might cause you to analyse your belief more critically. We arrive at a decision usually by means of a mixture of emotion, convention and reason. Considering the question of whether the feature and the app are good enough as a bet is likely to make you use a more evidence-based approach.

Why do I think I am done here? Would I bet money/reputation on it? I have a checklist stuck to one of my screens, that I read and contemplate when I get to this point. When you have considered the options, you may decide to check some more things or ship the app. Either could be the right decision.
Then the app fails…
The next day you log on and find that the feature is b…