Skip to main content

Even the errors are broken!

An amused but slightly exasperated developer once turned to me and said "I not only have to get all the features correct, I have to get the errors correct too!". He was referring to the need to implement graceful and useful failure behaviour for his application.

Rather than present the customer or user with an error message or stack trace - give them a route to succeed in their goal. E.g. Find the product they seek or even buy it.
Bing Suggestions demonstrates ungraceful failure.

Graceful failure can take several forms, take a look at this Bing [search] Suggestions bug in Internet Explorer 11.

As you can see, the user is presented with a useful feature, most of the time. But should they paste a long URL into the location bar - They get hit with an error message.

There are multiple issues here. What else is allowing this to happen to the user? The user is presented with an error message - Why? What could the user possibly do with it? Bing Suggestions does not fail gracefully.
I not only have to get all the features correct, I have to get the errors correct too!  -Developer
In this context, presenting the user with an error message is a bug, probably worse than the fact the suggestions themselves don't work. If they silently failed - the number users who were consciously affected would probably be greatly reduced.

By causing the software to fail, we often appear to be destructive, but again we are learning more about the application, through its failure. Handling failures gracefully is another feature of the software that is important to real users - in the real world. The user wants to use your product to achieve their goal. They don't want to see every warning light that displays in the pilot's cockpit. Just tell them if they need to put their seat-belt on.

Comments

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…