Skip to main content

Nobody expects the...

In a previous post I discussed one method I use to improve my testing skills, spending spare minutes testing a machine or website that is readily at hand. The example I used was Google's search, in particular its currency conversion feature. This is useful for getting practice, and trying to speed up my testing, that is - finding information more quickly.

Another activity I perform is watching someone else test something. As testers, we are often asked to be a second pair of eyes, as its assumed that a programmer might not notice some issues in their own code. The idea being that you will not be blinded by the same assumptions, and will hopefully find new issues with the software. Using the same logic, by watching someone else test, I can examine their successes and failures more easily.

I've asked many people to test a variety of objects, usually things to hand, like a wristwatch or something I've recently bought. One recurring pattern I have noticed is how programmers and testers approach the problems. That is, they tend to use different techniques and I think this is because testers have a slightly different underlying approach.

For example I once gave a toy to a colleague to 'test'. The description I gave was limited: A small plastic/rubber toy, aimed at toddlers and above. Bought for a few pounds. You can see what it looks like here:

The tests suggested were good, a range of things that I would hope any toy my son had would of been subjected to. For example toxicity, tearing etc. They also examined the toy and noticed a spike had been torn - after which I explained the toy had previously had a brightly coloured chord loop or lanyard that had been torn off. This also produced a few more relevant tests, all good.

After a while, the suggested tests had been exhausted, as well as the associated questions, such as "Did it come with a manual?" (The answer was no - except for a piece of paper with words to the effect of "Made in China, do not burn."). These were all good tests and questions. But I've noticed that testers would ask many of the same questions and suggest similar tests, but also suggest another group of tests.

Programmers are builders, they focus on what they are constructing. Their experience tends to cause them to follow very much what they are presented with. The plan, the specification, the system they are upgrading. As such, when presented with a testing problem, their tests focus on the same aspects, quite rightly. If they were building the system themselves, their tests and questions would all be what I'd expect them to do. Experienced and skilled programmers bring a wealth of background knowledge that can make their work very thorough, and of high quality.

As such, good programmers can often do a reasonable job of software testing. There is one area of testing that I have noticed that programmers tend to miss. Good testers will often try to find areas they don't know about (Rather than examining those that they do know in greater and greater detail). They have techniques for breaking out of their own view of the problem. While a programmer will often only perform a test if they can frame it back to a 'requirement' testers often perform a test - because they can.

The sorts of things testers suggest is pretty interesting, and varied, but they tend to be destructive. I've asked testers, after they have suggested an "off the wall" test that surprised me, "Why would you do that?". The responses vary, and I suspect that the justification is often being generated when I ask. Thats not a problem, much of what we do in testing is not "named". They are techniques people have learned by doing, and maybe never had reason to analyse and put a name to. What I think the testers are doing is performing "something" that will expose new behaviour.

They have learned that by doing predictable things, you will tend to get predictable answers. If you work with the same assumptions and behaviours that the rest of your team do, then you are unlikely to see new and interesting behaviour. By, for example, when asked to test a wristwatch - they suggest removing the battery or throwing the watch in the sea, that may seem a little strange. They certainly don't seem to match with the Conditions of Satisfaction. But they might actually help identify important features of the wristwatch, that otherwise might not of been discovered. For example the watch was made of Titanium, which does not rust in salt-water. Or that the wristwatch was powered by the motion of the user, as well as by a 'backup' battery.

The testers have learned that getting another viewpoint, can discover new information. And as information gatherers, thats a pretty important achievement. They are climbing a tree, not to see if the tree is climbable but rather to find out whats there? As such they suddenly see the size of the forest, the life supported in and around the tree or that they have a pine-wood allergy. In the toy example above, if the tester had picked up the toy and crushed it, they would have noticed it start to flash bright colours.


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…