Skip to main content

Scatter guns and muskets.

Many, Many years ago I worked at a startup called (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 the net wide, trying to catch as many issues as I could.

Nowadays, as a full-time tester, I use both skills every day. When I think I've uncovered a curious result or behaviour I switch to investigating mode to zoom in on prevalence, scope and causes etc. A good programmer will also usually have very good investigative skills which they put into practice when debugging and researching anomalies. 

Some people attempt to formalise what we (programmers, testers etc) do, by copying what people appear to be doing and putting that into a script. For example, some teams often take the 'change/try one thing' approach from research & investigation and try to use that -alone- for testing. They use a (BDD, Excel, Notepad etc) script that checks a calculation by calling the feature with example parameters, and checking the answer is correct. Great, Job done, green tick, the feature works, move on. (Ok, maybe not.)

Step 1: How might we improve on that?

That might be useful. But for just a couple more lines of code (basically just a for loop) you could check 100,000 parameters. This scattergun of data is much more likely to catch a bug. Why? Well, for example, there are usually rounding issues, hidden boundaries etc. From my experience there usually are issues, that won't come to light with just a token couple of example musket shots through the logic.

Picture of a Flintlock Musket called Brown Bess
Bess fired a lead bullet 1.9 cm in diameter, but could only fire every 20 seconds.

Step 2: Change of approach

We can use these same techniques and tools when testing in real time. We don't need to have a fully automated solution straight away. This gives us the ability to also find these issues up front, as we test. This isn't so much a technology change but rather, a change of mindset.

We can stop thinking of 'the tests' as being an immovable, unchangeable detector of 'goodness' (or not bad-ness for things we have checked) and instead think of them as a handy tool that I can grab anytime I need to dig deeper, get a clearer picture of whats going on. The 'tests' become something you use, a toolset, rather than something you build.

You will soon find your code is more generalised, more configurable and helps you find bugs - quicker.


Popular posts from this blog

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. Testing is gambling with your time to find information about the app. 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

XSS and Open Redirect on Authentication pages

I recently found a couple of security issues with the website. The site contained an Open redirect as well as an XSS vulnerability. These issues were in the authentication section of the website, . The flaws could provide an easy means to phish customer details and passwords from unsuspecting users. I informed the telegraph's technical management, as part of a responsible disclosure process. The telegraph management forwarded the issue report and thanked me the same day. (12th May 2014) The fix went live between the 11th and 14th of July, 2 months after the issue was reported. The details: The code served via appeared to have 2 vulnerabilities, an open redirect and a reflected Cross Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability. Both types of vulnerabilty are in the OWASP Top 10 and can be used to manipulate and phish users of a website. As well has potentially hijack a user's session. Compromised URLs, that exp

Test Engineers, counsel for... all of the above!

Sometimes people discuss test engineers and QA as if they were a sort of police force, patrolling the streets of code looking for offences and offenders. While I can see the parallels, the investigation, checking the veracity of claims and a belief that we are making things safer. The simile soon falls down. But testers are not on the other side of the problem, we work alongside core developers, we often write code and follow all the same procedures (pull requests, planning, requirements analysis etc) they do. We also have the same goals, the delivery of working software that fulfills the team’s/company's goals and avoids harm. "A few good men" a great courtroom drama, all about finding the truth. Software quality, whatever that means for you and your company is helped by Test Engineers. Test Engineers approach the problem from another vantage point. We are the lawyers (& their investigators) in the court-room, sifting the evidence, questioning the facts and viewing t