Skip to main content

Your software sucks (any data you give it)

At 1524h, On the afternoon of January 15th 2009, US Airways Flight 1549 was cleared for takeoff from Runway 4 at New York's La Guardia airport. The airplane carried 150 passengers and 5 flight crew, on a flight to Charlotte Douglas, North Carolina. The Airbus A320's twin CFM56 engines had been serviced just over a month prior to the flight. The plane climbed to a height of 859m (2818 feet) before disaster struck.

Passengers reported hearing several loud bangs and then flames being visible from the engines' exhaust. Shortly thereafter the 2 engines shut-down, robbing the Airbus of thrust and its primary source of electrical power.

At this point the Captain took over from the First officer and between them they spent the next 3 minutes both looking for somewhere to land, while also desperately trying to restart their aircraft's engines.

What Happened?

A flock of birds had crossed the path of the Airbus and several had struck the plane. Both engines had ingested birds and shut-down as a result. A shut-down is the FAA required minimum standard behaviour for a Jet engine.

An Emirates engine after a bird strike.
The safe automatic shut-down of a jet engine is a scenario tested for by engine manufacturers before they can be certified for use.

Worse things might happen, e.g. the broken unbalanced blades might continue blowing air into the fuel rich combustion chamber while red-hot engine fragments are jettisoned outwards into other parts of the fuel-laden plane.

Viewed in that light: a graceful shut-down is not a bad minimum safety requirement.

If we think about it, jet engines need a good deal of testing, after-all they
  • Are mission critical.
  • Work faster than humans can think and react.
  • Are expensive and time consuming to build.
  • Have to be integrated with other complex systems
  • Have to accept un-validated inputs (like birds)
Does any of that sound familiar? That last one in particular is relevant to the field of software development and testing.

Un-validated input? How do they test that?


One of the tests that can be performed on a Jet Engine is to fire frozen poultry into the engine. The engine ingests a turkey at high speed, in an attempt to simulate a bird being sucked into the engine during flight.

Like many technical systems that deal directly with the outside world, software can have serious problems when exposed to unusual inputs. Like the Jet, the point of ingest literally can not be protected - something has to 'process' what’s coming in.

As software testers working with applications that need to handle these situations, we need to learn how to perform our own frozen-turkey-tests and examine how our complex systems handle them.
  • Do they crash?
  • If they crash, is that OK? 
  • What have I learned?
  • What were the side effects?
  • Can I restart it? or is it now 'corrupted' ?
  • What is the likelihood of failure?
The sort of websites we use every day have to accept largely un-validated inputs, they are on the internet and anything our computer can send - they have to deal with.

But surely its just text, right?
If its not 'normal' block it!

That isn’t going to work for long... For example Google has to handle anything you want to find on any website. Even if you accidentally include some right-to-left data in your search:




...Or you want to find out how to do that cool Emoticon on your new Microsoft Surface notebook keyboard... Microsoft.com then needs to handle that query.


...Or you don't want to pay extra on your phone bill just because you used a smiley face in your text message.

These are real world examples of things people use their software for, every day. Hence they are the sort of things we need to test for, lest our users end up going elsewhere or find they are being over charged.

Tools such as No More ASCII can help us test websites, by giving us direct access to a range of Unicode 'code-points' that may cause problems for our software.

The problems can be subtle, more than just something 'not looking right'. The complex nature in which languages are represented in your application can mean that simple things such as measuring the length of a string can fail. (string.online-toolz.com)




Sorting can also fail. If your text is reversed for example if may not render correctly afterwords:


These 2 issues are caused by the website not being able to properly process Unicode text, in particular the UTF-16 flavour of Unicode. Some characters (or Graphemes as they are called in Unicode) are in fact made-up of 2 parts or 'code-points'. So whilst many characters tend to be 1 code-point, some are pairs.  These pairs are referred to as 'surrogate pairs'.

Why does the reverse-string function fail? It appears to be putting the emoticons 2 code-points in reverse order, when it shouldn't. They should be treated together as one character when a reverse or sort is performed. (When the individual code-points in a surrogate pair are swapped, they become meaningless).

How to reverse a UTF-16 text string with a Surrogate Pair in it.

These 'surrogate pairs' cover things like Emoticons or Musical notation etc. While not used widely on computers in North America in the 1960s, therefore  not in ASCII, they are now widely used all around the globe.

Un-validated text input is great example of where tools-assisted-testing can discover a wealth of knowledge about our applications. Given the wide domain of possible inputs and unknown-complexity of the app, this is an inherently exploratory process. Have the right tools on-hand helps you gain that knowledge quicker.

You can read more about how to explore how your browser/app handles Unicode.

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…

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…