Skip to main content

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, manumation.

Metropolis (1927)

The answer is to use... Sorry, I don't have a magic tool, with a funky name, light-hearted ReadMe and a 3 word install command.

When presented with this situation I advise people to take a step back. Think about what they want for their team, and themselves. We want to deliver faster and easier right?

Often removing a tool, can save time and work. Could that complicated deployment system be replaced with a 5 line bash script?

Could that test suite, focus on the sort of techniques computers are good at? (reading and writing to APIs at speed, randomisation, graphing, comparison/diffing of complicated documents etc.) Many teams fall into the trap of 'look no hands' as if they are trying to spin plates rather than build quality software, fast.

Sounds simple, but when people are wedded to a tool or an idea of how things 'should be' because it was in that book - by that guy "its a best practice!" then it can be difficult to get things simplified.

Step back before things become comical. Safety Last! (1923)

But simplification is often the easiest and quickest place to start. It rarely makes sense to mix in more, to something that is already a muddle. If your team is already manually keeping the 'automation' going, then letting someone do the process manually - for a few hours will probably help you figure out what can be reliably automated, and what are the sticky complicated bits - people are quicker at doing.

Software testing is often overtaken by the above sort of [broken] tools feeding frenzy. The look no hands evangelist, may have had great ideas, but did that suite of tests really make your life easier? Did it free up time for finding the important bugs? Or are you now finding the real bugs in the test automation, while the software your product owner is paying for is hobbling along slowly and expensively to production?

Comments

  1. I know what you mean. I've seen these everywhere. Automation that was supposed to save time, but ended up requiring more work to maintain by hand. Especially in software testing.

    But any automation is code at the end of the day. And poorly implemented automation is simply code with code-smells. And tests created with many of these software testing tools are rife with poor code hygiene, such as hard-coded IDs, magic waits, and un-readability that compromises the maintainability of the tests (and sanity of the testers/developers).

    We need better tools that work for us, not the other way around.

    Oh, and if you are looking for an robust way to automate testing for web apps, try UI-licious (https://uilicious.com). I'm the maker of it, and I gladly invite you to try it and tell me if this is still manumation needed. ;)

    Shi Ling
    @taishiling (twitter)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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…

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…