Skip to main content

The Hunky-dory Hypothesis

"If we just run it with this data, and it looks Ok, we'll know it works" the architect says expectantly, "Right?"

"You're right, We might see 'it work'", "How would that help?" I answer.

"Well errh, it works, so we can put it live tomorrow."

We've seen this situation before; it can arrive in conversation like the above, or from a review of Acceptance Test results or in a host of other forms. The premise is: everything is fine, we've done the work - we have evidence everything is done and working.

But, how can demonstrating that the application can 'work' help? How will seeing the acceptance test results as 'green' help? That might sound nonsensical, but seriously: how does it help our customer make the decision to ship [or not]? Or help them distribute people and resources better? It may seem that telling them 'its all hunky-dory' is news and good news at that, but it isn't. It can be reassuring, but often it actually harms our understanding of the situation we are in.

Lets take a step back. The code has been pair-programmed, checked by the developers, unit tested and peer reviewed. They believe it's good, their supervisor/reviewer thinks its great. The acceptance tests are all green and emitting a warm fuzzy feel good glow. The project manager, program manager and technical architect are all confident in their designs and plans - they're good - the software is ready to ship tomorrow. The vested parties believe and hence in their view, know, its good to go. A few cursory checks (see above 'test case') is all that is required. So how will confirming their view help? They're already convinced, they already know.

Their view is often the default for programmers, system administrators, those without a testing background or those with a vested interest in seeing the system shipped tomorrow. Their mental image of the software is like a clean sheet of paper, its blank, unblemished, all shiny and new. This spotless canvas also reports no information. No shadows, no ambiguities no feedback whatsoever. If during my testing, I confirm the 'hunky dory' hypothesis, I'm effectively painting white paint on my canvas.

But if during our testing, we find a problem, an area of ambiguity, or an outright bug - We increase our knowledge of the system under test. By filling in these gaps in our knowledge, We are painting a picture of how our system looks under various conditions. This image, albeit a 'Negative', provides the detail that was previously missing from our knowledge. Without this image we are blind to the potential problems and can not see the risks, let alone be able to mitigate them.

Good testing delivers information that helps us disprove our illusions. This process is invaluable in obtaining accurate knowledge of the risks associated with a software release. In a culture where software is considered innocent, until it crashes or loses you money, good testing can help overcome the group-think that often leads to poor software in live environments.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Pete Walen10 January 2011 at 13:01

    I've had conversations like that more times than I care to think about. I'm afraid that each time it happens, some folks think that I'm either being pedantic, negative or intentionally trying to ruin their schedule. Excellent first sentence in the last paragraph. Solid post.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anders Dinsen11 January 2011 at 22:40

    It's only a month ago since I learnt that term: honky-dory. And now you've written a splendid piece about it. Thanks, Pete!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What possible use could Gen AI be to me? (Part 1)

There’s a great scene in the Simpsons where the Monorail salesman comes to town and everyone (except Lisa of course) is quickly entranced by Monorail fever… He has an answer for every question and guess what? The Monorail will solve all the problems… somehow. The hype around Generative AI can seem a bit like that, and like Monorail-guy the sales-guy’s assure you Gen AI will solve all your problems - but can be pretty vague on the “how” part of the answer. So I’m going to provide a few short guides into how Generative (& other forms of AI) Artificial Intelligence can help you and your team. I’ll pitch the technical level differently for each one, and we’ll start with something fairly not technical: Custom Chatbots. ChatBots these days have evolved from the crude web sales tools of ten years ago, designed to hoover up leads for the sales team. They can now provide informative answers to questions based on documents or websites. If we take the most famous: Chat GPT 4. If we ignore the
Post a Comment
Read more

Is your ChatBot actually using your data?

 In 316 AD Emperor Constantine issued a new coin,  there's nothing too unique about that in itself. But this coin is significant due to its pagan/roman religious symbols. Why is this odd? Constantine had converted himself, and probably with little consultation -  his empire to Christianity, years before. Yet the coin shows the emperor and the (pagan) sun god Sol.  Looks Legit! While this seems out of place, to us (1700 years later), it's not entirely surprising. Constantine and his people had followed different, older gods for centuries. The people would have been raised and taught the old pagan stories, and when presented with a new narrative it's not surprising they borrowed from and felt comfortable with both. I've seen much the same behaviour with Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT. You can provide them with fresh new data, from your own documents, but what's to stop it from listening to its old training instead?  You could spend a lot of time collating,
Post a Comment
Read more

Can Gen-AI understand Payments?

When it comes to rolling out updates to large complex banking systems, things can get messy quickly. Of course, the holy grail is to have each subsystem work well independently and to do some form of Pact or contract testing – reducing the complex and painful integration work. But nonetheless – at some point you are going to need to see if the dog and the pony can do their show together – and its generally better to do that in a way that doesn’t make millions of pounds of transactions fail – in a highly public manner, in production.  (This post is based on my recent lightning talk at  PyData London ) For the last few years, I’ve worked in the world of high value, real time and cross border payments, And one of the sticking points in bank [software] integration is message generation. A lot of time is spent dreaming up and creating those messages, then maintaining what you have just built. The world of payments runs on messages, these days they are often XML messages – and they can be pa
Post a Comment
Read more