Skip to main content

Shall We Ask the Magic 8-Ball?


Identifying a technology need is usually pretty easy - your team will complain at every opportunity, however tangential, about how some application is too complicated or is not powerful enough or has a major missing feature or doesn't integrate with other applications  or you can't search it or it's too slow or it uses different conventions to the other tools or there was something better at their last job or they just plain don't like it.

You'll usually agree. And you'll usually want to wait for a (non-existent, and you know it) better time to think about it because introducing a new technology can be time-consuming, hard work and risky.

Eventually events will overtake you. When that happens, I start by drawing up a list of  application-specific requirements, prioritised of course, and then add this basic set of parameters that I want to compare across any candidate tools:
  • user community: is it active? how is the tool viewed?
  • support: forums, bug database, blogs etc
  • developer community: are people building and building on the tool?
  • maturity: will the tool be changing under your feet?
  • regular releases/fixes: is the tool being maintained?
  • dependencies/requirements: what else needs to be installed?
  • deployment: Does it use standard packages? Is it easy to update? 
  • integration: does it offer any APIs or ability to customise?
  • price: include maintenance, per-user licenses fees, your own costs etc
    Once you've got your comparison factors, you can start to look for candidate applications. Almost certainly someone will have trodden this path before so try searching for lists of tools or reviews and comparisons of different products to give you a starting point.

    In a short initial phase, identify as many tools as you can - be inclusive at this stage, so bring in anything that looks remotely possible - and quickly grade them in against your requirements. Don't spend long on this and don't be afraid to put don't know entries in the table to start with. Sometimes you'll find that a tool does something you hadn't thought of that you might like. Don't be afraid to add it to your comparison table as you go. What you're trying to do here is discover (a) classes of tool,  (b) obvious non-starters and (c) obvious candidates for a deeper review.

    Once you've done that you can rank and cluster the tools based on your criteria and choose a selection (e.g. one from each class you've identified) to take to the next round. The next round has to be more specific to your intended usage. It might be another review, based on deeper reading about the tools or it might be trial installations, or you might have already identified one outstanding candidate in which case you're done.

    As an example, when we were looking for GUI automation tools recently we had 20 or so requirements including these, with their priorities:
    • P1 programmatic access to GUI components
    • P1 supports testing Swing
    • P1 allows versioned source control
    • P2 easy for Dev to run alongside unit tests
    • P3 ability to drive other products
    • P3 works with applications and applets
    Our initial list of around 30 tools included pyWinAuto, Win32::GuiTest, Abbot, AutoHotkey, SIKULI, FEST, SilkTest and Squish and we identified three classes of tool:
    • purely record/playback
    • purely programmatic
    • hybrid
    We trialed at least one of each class, attempting to create a small set of  tests we identified as interesting for our product, and ultimately chose FEST, not least because we can share skills and test cases with the Dev team. They'll use the library for unit tests and we'll drive it using JUnit for running application-level tests too.

    We invested effort into choosing this technology to give ourselves the best chance of making the right choice first time but, as so often, we won't know whether it really does everything that we want until we're much further down the road. It'd be so much easier if we could just ask the 8-Ball.

    Comments

    Popular posts from this blog

    Can Code, Can't Code, Is Useful

    The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book,  Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide  responses to common questions and statements about testing from a  context-driven perspective . It's being edited by  Lee Hawkins  who is  posing questions on  Twitter ,   LinkedIn , Mastodon , Slack , and the AST  mailing list  and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to  contribute  by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00-- "If testers can’t code, they’re of no use to us" My first reaction is to wonder what you expect from your testers. I am immediately interested in your working context and the way

    Meet Me Halfway?

      The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book,  Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide  responses to common questions and statements about testing from a  context-driven perspective . It's being edited by  Lee Hawkins  who is  posing questions on  Twitter ,   LinkedIn , Mastodon , Slack , and the AST  mailing list  and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to  contribute  by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00-- "Stop answering my questions with questions." Sure, I can do that. In return, please stop asking me questions so open to interpretation that any answer would be almost meaningless and certa

    Testing (AI) is Testing

    Last November I gave a talk, Random Exploration of a Chatbot API , at the BCS Testing, Diversity, AI Conference .  It was a nice surprise afterwards to be offered a book from their catalogue and I chose Artificial Intelligence and Software Testing by Rex Black, James Davenport, Joanna Olszewska, Jeremias Rößler, Adam Leon Smith, and Jonathon Wright.  This week, on a couple of train journeys around East Anglia, I read it and made sketchnotes. As someone not deeply into this field, but who has been experimenting with AI as a testing tool at work, I found the landscape view provided by the book interesting, particularly the lists: of challenges in testing AI, of approaches to testing AI, and of quality aspects to consider when evaluating AI.  Despite the hype around the area right now there's much that any competent tester will be familiar with, and skills that translate directly. Where there's likely to be novelty is in the technology, and the technical domain, and the effect of

    Testers are Gate-Crashers

      The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book,  Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide  responses to common questions and statements about testing from a  context-driven perspective . It's being edited by  Lee Hawkins  who is  posing questions on  Twitter ,   LinkedIn , Mastodon , Slack , and the AST  mailing list  and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to  contribute  by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00-- "Testers are the gatekeepers of quality" Instinctively I don't like the sound of that, but I wonder what you mean by it. Perhaps one or more of these? Testers set the quality sta

    Postman Curlections

    My team has been building a new service over the last few months. Until recently all the data it needs has been ingested at startup and our focus has been on the logic that processes the data, architecture, and infrastructure. This week we introduced a couple of new endpoints that enable the creation (through an HTTP POST) and update (PUT) of the fundamental data type (we call it a definition ) that the service operates on. I picked up the task of smoke testing the first implementations. I started out by asking the system under test to show me what it can do by using Postman to submit requests and inspecting the results. It was the kinds of things you'd imagine, including: submit some definitions (of various structure, size, intent, name, identifiers, etc) resubmit the same definitions (identical, sharing keys, with variations, etc) retrieve the submitted definitions (using whatever endpoints exist to show some view of them) compare definitions I submitted fro

    Build Quality

      The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book,  Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide  responses to common questions and statements about testing from a  context-driven perspective . It's being edited by  Lee Hawkins  who is  posing questions on  Twitter ,   LinkedIn , Mastodon , Slack , and the AST  mailing list  and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to  contribute  by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00-- "When the build is green, the product is of sufficient quality to release" An interesting take, and one I wouldn't agree with in general. That surprises you? Well, ho

    Make, Fix, and Test

    A few weeks ago, in A Good Tester is All Over the Place , Joep Schuurkes described a model of testing work based on three axes: do testing yourself or support testing by others be embedded in a team or be part of a separate team do your job or improve the system It resonated with me and the other testers I shared it with at work, and it resurfaced in my mind while I was reflecting on some of the tasks I've picked up recently and what they have involved, at least in the way I've chosen to address them. Here's three examples: Documentation Generation We have an internal tool that generates documentation in Confluence by extracting and combining images and text from a handful of sources. Although useful, it ran very slowly or not at all so one of the developers performed major surgery on it. Up to that point, I had never taken much interest in the tool and I could have safely ignored this piece of work too because it would have been tested by

    Am I Wrong?

    I happened across Exploratory Testing: Why Is It Not Ideal for Agile Projects? by Vitaly Prus this week and I was triggered. But why? I took a few minutes to think that through. Partly, I guess, I feel directly challenged. I work on an agile project (by the definition in the article) and I would say that I use exclusively exploratory testing. Naturally, I like to think I'm doing a good job. Am I wrong? After calming down, and re-reading the article a couple of times, I don't think so. 😸 From the start, even the title makes me tense. The ideal solution is a perfect solution, the best solution. My context-driven instincts are reluctant to accept the premise, and I wonder what the author thinks is an ideal solution for an agile project, or any project. I notice also that I slid so easily from "an approach is not ideal" into "I am not doing a good job" and, in retrospect, that makes me smile. It doesn't do any harm to be reminded that your cognitive bias

    Test Now

    The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book,  Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide  responses to common questions and statements about testing from a  context-driven perspective . It's being edited by  Lee Hawkins  who is  posing questions on  Twitter ,   LinkedIn , Mastodon , Slack , and the AST  mailing list  and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to  contribute  by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00-- "When is the best time to test?" Twenty posts in , I hope you're not expecting an answer without nuance? You are? Well, I'll do my best. For me, the best time to test is when there

    Play to Play

    I'm reading Rick Rubin's The Creative Act: A Way of Being . It's spiritual without being religious, simultaneously vague and specific, and unerring positive about the power and ubiquity of creativity.  We artists — and we are all artists he says — can boost our creativity by being open and welcoming to knowledge and experiences and layering them with past knowledge and experiences to create new knowledge and experiences.  If that sounds a little New Age to you, well it does to me too, yet also fits with how I think about how I work. This is in part due to that vagueness, in part due to the human tendency to pattern-match, and in part because it's true. I'm only about a quarter of the way through the book but already I am making connections to things that I think and that I have thought in the past. For example, in some ways it resembles essay-format Oblique Strategy cards and I wrote about the potential value of them to testers 12 years ago. This week I found the f