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…

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…