Skip to main content

Shutter Sync, when failure provides enlightenment

Shutter sync is an interesting artefact generated when we video moving objects. Take a look at this video of a Helicopter taking off:

Notice how the boats are moving as normal, but the rotors appear to be barely moving at all. This isn’t a ‘Photoshop’. It’s an effect of video camera’s frame rate matching the speed/position of the rotors. Each time the camera takes a picture or ‘frame’ the rotors happen to be in approximately the same relative position.

The regular and deterministic behaviour of both machines enables the helicopter to appear to be both broken and flying. The rotors don’t appear to be working, while other evidence suggests its rotors are providing all the lift required.

What's so exciting is that this tells us something useful, as well as apparently being a flaw or fail. We could both assume the rotors move with a constant rotation, and estimate a series of possible values for the speed of the rotors, given this video.

Your automated checks/tests can be exhibit this too. Take for example a check that often/always ‘fails’. But when you examine the software with other tools the problem disappears.
This might be a probe effect - that is, the ‘bug’ may only happen because of the testing tool. This is actually quite common. It was a bugbear of mine in the days of pre-webdriver browser automation e.g. Selenium RC, as RC inserted a lot of JavaScript into the page - often resulting in erroneous behaviour.

The ‘failure’ could also be a race condition. The regular systematic behaviour of the the testing framework, interacts with near perfect timing with the software being tested. The checking code, sees the problem frequently & repeatedly - as it always checks in the narrow window of time, when there is a problem.

Automated test/check ‘failures’ like the above are often dismissed immediately as things to work-around or fix. While it might make sense to ‘clean’ this from our results, we could miss potentially valuable avenues for testing. The ‘failing’ test is presenting us with information. That information might be more valuable than a clean pass/fail result - especially if the apparent failures have an inconsistency of this kind.

Just as with shutter sync, where we determine the behaviour of the rotors from the video. We can glean useful information from the ‘failing’ test/check. Investigation of these test ‘failures’ might show that the GUI is not quite in sync with the database or other users screens etc.  Maybe when the UI suggests an action is done - the user/system could actually still write some data for a short while. Or two events that as far as an API shown happen sequentially - in reality happen at the same time.

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…