Skip to main content

How did you find that bug? Are we sitting comfortably, then I'll begin.

How did you find that bug? - They asked with a sort of puzzled "he dun't thunk like uz" look on their faces. An expression that suggested they were unsure whether to commend the discovery or gather their pitchforks and organise a well overdue witch burning.

Likewise, I now knew why they needed me. The team members were genuinely hard working people trying to build something new and exciting. But they lacked one thing, someone exploring & asking questions - trying to find out new things about their application. Exploring is literally a step into the unknown, and that can be uncomfortable for those not experienced in how to do it well.

Related image
Exploring is literally a step into the unknown.
So how did I find that bug? It's easy to tell a story of how I tried that particular input value because... Paragraph 3 of v4.6 of the requirements document stated that the user shall indeed on occasion X given input Y in Chrome v62 do... Or spout some other overly verbose explanation of why that broken 'scenario' came to be valid. 

But I wouldn't be answering their question, and I wouldn't be telling the truth. The truth of how I (and other testers) do this is harder to remember. But having a better idea of how you got there is going to help you get there again.

Let's take a trivial example. A few years ago, working on a new editorial system for a financial news organisation: I discovered that entering a double quote character into the content search feature caused it to crash. Even worse it returned no results (But it didn't fail to provide the users with a nasty technical error message). This had not been noticed before, yet many tests had been written and run. They had more acceptance tests than they could run in a night.

I had not examined requirements documentation for that feature. I had not perused the Acceptance Criteria for the Search feature. I had not reviewed the unreliable test automation. What I did was speak to the team and then type some quoted text into the search form. I had thought that the search should behave like Google, whereby if you include text in quotes - it will search for an exact match to that string of characters. I was interested to see what happened.

I did not know whether the search should support this sort of exact phrase matching. But I was exploring. I knew 'searches' [in my experience] worked like this - so I decided to check if this one did. This was the first step in a series of related tests that allowed me and my colleagues to uncover many more issues with the search feature.

When a team is focused on short-term delivery goals they can lose sight of the features not listed right in front of them. You need someone to question, someone to explore someone to point out that crashing when an editor uses a quote is sub-optimal. That's what I do at Investigating Software.


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

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

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