Skip to main content

Wrong in front of you.

In 2008 I attended GTAC in Seattle, a conference devoted to the use of automation in software testing. Since their first in London in 2006, Google have been running about one a year, in various locations around the world. This post isn't really about the conference, its about a realisation that I had the day after the conference.

After the conference I went sight-seeing in Seattle. I rode the short Simpsons-like Monorail and took a lift up the Jetsons-like space needle. I enjoyed my time there, and found the people very friendly. The conference had been very technology focused, many (but granted, not all) speakers focused on tools and how to use tools. While useful, the tools are only part of testing - and even then they typically just support testing rather than "do" testing.

The Seattle Monorail.


While I was at the top of the Space needle, I took out my phone and like a good tourist started taking pictures. I'd typically take a couple of pictures then look at them on the screen. While on the outer viewing area, I noticed a port with a few container ships approaching and departing the docks. I took a quick snap of the port area, hoping that the detail of picture would be visible. I checked the phone's screen, and was struck by something. Here is the picture:



What surprised me, were the wire barriers. I had not even noticed them before. They quite effectively ruin the shot. In my minds eye the scene I had been looking at resembled this:



This second picture, taken minutes later, after I had realised my mistake, was much closer to my uncritical impression of the view from the Space Needle. Our minds are very effective at filtering out unwanted or un-needed information. This is great and allows us to get on with many tasks that need our full attention. But this attention, can also show itself as mis-direction, we fail to see the [sometimes literal] barriers right in front of us. I believed I had an uninterrupted view of the docks below me, but I didn't.

This is where being critical of what is the apparently obvious, right in front of us, can help. Of course by critical I mean in the sense of critical thinking. By consciously stepping back, re-examining the evidence and asking questions that may seem silly to some, we can often highlight problems that were previously almost invisible. This is an area where tools are often very useful, by providing a quick way to capture, store and display evidence, such as pictures in our example above. But the overly-hopeful view of a world in which the machine is doing the critical thinking is still someway off, and attempts to achieve such a thing in software testing are often wasteful and become expensive to run white-elephants.

Comments

  1. Excellent article, great point. As always.

    I would probably have noticed the wires right away since I do a lot of photography and don't make this mistake any more. I'd probably think something like "Oh, autofocus will get confused by the wires, and I'll need to use a large aperture lens to make them less visible in the photo, etc")

    The interesting part here, IMO, is that you evaluated your result immediately after snapping it. This allowed you to compare your mental image of the result with the actual one: A quick iteration meant that you could fix the bug at virtually zero cost.

    And this is why digital cameras and even cell phones take better pictures than film cameras ever did: They allow for quick shoot, evaluate, reshoot iterations making great compositions in great lighting.

    Good software test tools can help make short iterations too, by the way.

    /Anders

    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…

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 -…

How did you find that bug? Are we sitting comfortably, then I'll begin.

How did you find that bug? - They asked with a sort of puzzled "he dun't thunk like uz" look on their faces. An expression that suggested they were unsure whether to commend the discovery or gather their pitchforks and organise a well overdue witch burning.

Likewise, I now knew why they needed me. The team members were genuinely hard working people trying to build something new and exciting. But they lacked one thing, someone exploring & asking questions - trying to find out new things about their application. Exploring is literally a step into the unknown, and that can be uncomfortable for those not experienced in how to do it well.
So how did I find that bug? It's easy to tell a story of how I tried that particular input value because... Paragraph 3 of v4.6 of the requirements document stated that the user shall indeed on occasion X given input Y in Chrome v62 do... Or spout some other overly verbose explanation of why that broken 'scenario' came to be…