Skip to main content

Why you might need testers

I remember teaching my son to ride his bike. No, Strike that, Helping him to learn to ride his bike. It’s that way round – if we are honest – he was changing his brain so it could adapt to the mechanism and behaviour of the bike. I was just holding the bike, pushing and showering him with praise and tips.
By 齐健 from Peking, People's Republic of China (Down the Hutong)


If he fell, I didn’t and couldn’t change the way he was riding the bike. I suggested things, rubbed his sore knee and pointed out that he had just cycled more in that last attempt – than he had ever managed before - Son this is working, you’re getting it.


I had help of course, Gravity being one. When he lost balance, it hurt. Not a lot, but enough for his brain to get the feedback it needed to rewire a few neurons. If the mistakes were subtler, advice might help – try going faster – that will make the bike less wobbly. The excitement of going faster and better helped rewire a few more neurons.


When we have this sort of immediate feedback we learn quicker, we improve our game. When the feedback is about problems we don’t even know might exist, that expands our knowledge letting us adapt before its painful to do so.


My son had his own plan, skill and will. He could have learned on his own. It probably would have taken longer and maybe been more painful or even dangerous. Working as a team, we achieved something, more than we could alone.


In software development that’s how successful and sustainable teams work. We don’t have gravity, so we need other sources of feedback. Some of those might be ‘automated tests’, but much like my sons own ‘plan’ they only covered predicted behaviour. “So I just peddle and avoid the trees - Dad, it won’t be hard”.  We need another mind and experience to help us see outside our view of the problems. “Stay off the grass as well, it’s harder and more unstable there”.


That’s where skilled testers come in. Some of us are highly technical and will highlight technical issues or opportunities you haven’t noticed. Some of us are skilled at seeing the app from the customers view point and highlighting problems that will cost you customers. Many of us do the above and much more. This could be letting you know if we are breaking the law. We often write tools that enable us to test more things – better. Testers can be useful for just pointing out the simple stuff like – we are developing for Red Hat Linux, but 60% of our users are on Windows, and 25% are on Apple Macs.


“Our analytics will tell us what the customers are doing! We can tell if a feature or bug matters from the metrics!” Great idea. Do the analytics work well enough? Do you know if a user experiences an error? Do your analytics double-report or under-report? A second pair of eyes will probably find the analytics probably don’t work as well as we’d hoped.



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…