Skip to main content

Bug Automation

In many of my clients, more effort is spent on 'test automation' than on other forms of testing or quality assurance. That can be the right choice, for example, I worked on a Data Warehousing project where we needed to write some test automation before we could test the data and its processing.

Many other projects in different technology areas also spend a lot of time on their test automation. To be precise, they spend an increasing amount of time fixing & maintaining old 'tests' and 'frameworks'.

There are great tools around to help us write these automated checks quickly. But as with many software systems: maintenance, in the long term, is where the time and money goes. That is why I'm surprised we don't use short term automation more. We have the skills.

One good example of short term automation is Bug Automation. A simple script / executable that recreates or demonstrates a bug. This isn't a new idea, I've been doing it for years and I know other people have to.

Its common on open source projects to report an issue with example code, to clarify the exact issue you are reporting. Its a quick way to demonstrate the issue.

I'm not referring here to the idea of building a regression test suite from 'tests' (checks) from each bug fix. You can do that if you want, It can be very useful, but you are back to maintenance overhead.

By Bug Automation I'm referring to a disposable script that proves the system is broken. We can falsify the assumption that we have 'working' software. We can't prove the system is bug-free with our automation, but we can show its broken. 

The automation isn't there to indicate when we have fixed the issue - but to highlight that we, as a team, have created one.

In many situations a quick chat, screen-shot or URL is enough to help a developer fix a bug. But not always. For example, A tool like BlueBerry Test Assistant could help demonstrate a bug quicker than I can explain it. But in some contexts the best tool is code.

For example: I discovered a security flaw in an open source Content Management System used by several large media corporations, including my client at the time.  I could have described the issue to people, but that would have been a poor substitute to an actual demonstration.

Its hard to persuade someone that their 'secure' random token generator isn’t random - its easier to show them.  So I wrote some Bug Automation, and sent this along with a summary of the issue. (And together we figured out a more secure solution)

Another simple example: Google has a minor bug whereby if you enter Hebrew or Arabic text (with white-space) the full stop on the 'Press Enter...' message is placed at the wrong end of the sentence.


While the issue isn't hard to describe, or screen grab (see above). Recreating the issue might not be so easy. Therefore we can create some simple Bug Automation, like this.

Other members of your team can run this script and see the issue on their own PC. They don't have figure out how to type Right To Left languages or battle an OS or bug tracking system that doesn’t like you to copy and paste such things. Used purely as a communication aid, It also doesn’t have the maintenance overhead of trying to maintain a 'proof' of a fix long term.

Bug Automation is already a multimillion dollar industry, its called the Zero Day Exploit industry. Unfortunately that automation is often used for nefarious purposes. But as an example of positive deviance, it might be wise to pick-up on the clever things other developers & testers are doing, and use them for ourselves and for good.

Comments

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 -…

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…

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…