investigating software

In my last post I discussed how test automation could be used to do things that I couldn't easily do unaided. In that example, execute thousands of news 'content searches' and help me sort through them. With the help of some simple test automation I found some potential issues with the results returned by the REST API. In that case, I started out with the aim of implementing a tool. But your testing might not lead you that way, often your own hands-on investigation can find an issue. But you don't know how widespread it is, is it a one-off curiosity? or a sign of something more widespread.? Again, this is where test automation can help, and if done well, without being an implementation or maintenance burden. Many test automation efforts are blind to the very Agile idea of YAGNI or You Ain't Gonna Need it . They often presume to know all that needs to be tested in advance, deciding to invest most of their time writing 'tests' blindly against a specific

Consistency, is one thing I test for in software. For example, if software refers to something by a particular name, then [usually] it should always refer to it by that name. Furthermore, when it uses that name e.g. 'London Tube Map' I would expect to see such a map, when I click to view it, and not another kind of map e.g.: a street map. Conventions, These are also an important part of software. People will [usually] expect your software to use conventions that are appropriate for the field. For example, The traditional London Tube map is a schematic diagram, designed to show the relative positions of the stations rather than their geographic location. Though, sometimes it's actually useful to have geographic information, e.g.: is Queensway (Central line) station very close to Bayswater (Circle line)? So if a map isn't using the schematic form, then the geographic form also has it uses. I would be surprised if I received a London Tube map that was neither schemati