In Looking Good, Testers! I made the case that testing is about looking and that delegating the looking to someone or something else involves a risk calculation: do you both understand the task the same way, is the third party likely to carry out the task in the way you requested, how easily can you check any results they give back, could they complement you in some way, how will you keep your knowledge and skills up to date if you don't do this task any more, how much does this task matter, how much do you care about any of that, ...? I didn't say anything there about selecting what to look at or for ... and I'm not going to talk about it here either because it's essentially the whole of testing. I will note one thing, though: to find things other people don't find, look where other people don't look . What I do want to cover here is looking at things that, arguably, you don't need to. My team was recently asked to add a new layer to a service we ow...
Testing is inherently about looking because, put simply: If you don't look, you're not likely to find. The interesting challenge is to look in the right way at the right place at the right time. This is what motivates any kind of intentional testing: how can we put ourselves in a strong position to look for, see, and — crucially — recognise the things that matter to the people that matter, when they matter? --00-- Tools can help with this mission: using tools we can look more deeply, more broadly, for more complex patterns, for harder-to-spot traces, faster, more often, more efficiently, and so on. There's a trade-off, naturally. As the tool takes us further from the material being worked on we must either trust it more or check its results more thoroughly ... to the extent that we care about the results. At a crude level, think of it as a spectrum. At one end we might have a knife. It's a tool I can use ...