Skip to main content

Leave Your Guns At Home

So long ago it feels like another geological age - the Pre-Childrian, anyone? - I used to be in bands and I even made a few records. I don't have any formal schooling in music, and I didn't make much effort to learn by myself. Playing guitar was a creative endeavour and I took the view that I could do it however I wanted and when it didn't sound too good I just turned up the distortion because that always sounded good.

When I started using trackers to compose on the computer I unlearned what little I'd found out about music and the skill required to make it. Now I could focus on the selection as much as production; which samples to employ, how to arrange them, ways to process them to generate something new. The machine gave me space to improvise (read: bash the keyboard randomly) and then pick the bits that sounded good afterwards without ever having to be able to play them again. I embraced this freedom and began to collaborate with other people using the same simple technology.

But what I found was that the people I was working with actually knew what they were doing. They had RTFM. They had spent time understanding the limitations and capabilities of the tracker software. They had put in the effort to trying to exploit every last bit of functionality and pushed it to do things it wasn't intended to do.

They understood music too. Yes, they might arse around sometimes, but if they had a sound in their heads they had a good chance of getting into a track. If I had a sound in my head the best I could hope for was that it would go away before I wanted to sleep.

Away from what I'll loosely call art, on a practical level I was and continue to be reluctant to throw stuff away. I'll always try to fix something rather than chuck it. And if that fails I'll probably keep the bits in my shed for a while, just in case they come in useful.

Sometimes they do. It's great when you've got a spare part for something or when your daughters need pirate swords right now, Dad, and you can knock something up from an old bit of pipe lagging and some bamboo while they stand there and watch anxiously, paper hats all askew and eye patches slipping down over their cheeks and then run off happily batting each other over the head. But a lot of the time it just means I've got a shed full of crap. And there's not much space in the loft either.

When I started in employment it took me a long time to realise that, although I've got a lot of attributes that are relevant, and a real benefit, to my work, some tendencies need to be toned down or kept out of the workplace altogether.

When I started writing code I would often keep tinkering with something that already existed to try to bend it to what was required rather than start again. I can make it work, I would think. I can obscure the original intention, destroy any elegance it may have had, and chop it into minced meat, I would find. Still, the mince went with the spaghetti.

It's also perfectly valid to pick up a tool and use it for what you need to use it for and put it down again. We all do that all the time - just the other day I needed to monitor HTTP traffic on the client side to debug a web service interaction. I installed HTTPFox, which I've never used before, got what I needed and forgot about it. It's less valid to be using tools day-to-day, investing in them and accreting inertia to move to something better, without exploring the options they give you. Perhaps there's a major efficiency gain or a new technique just around the corner, but you won't know if you don't look.

And if you're using a tool to do something with a particular data format, well perhaps you should learn something about that format too. Who knows what you might notice if you have some idea  what you're looking at?

You're a tester: monitor yourself. Be selective about the aspects of yourself you choose to deploy at work and the contexts in which you apply them. Be honest about how well they're working. Keep the ones you don't need out of the office. Johnny Cash said it: "Don't take your guns to town, son", especially when you risk shooting yourself in the foot.

P.S. To my colleagues reading this: your suspicions are right, I have other character flaws traits in my private self and they still creep into work sometimes, although I try, try, try.
Image: Boss


Popular posts from this blog

Enjoy Testing

  The testers at work had a lean coffee session this week. One of the questions was  "I like testing best because ..." I said that I find the combination of technical, intellectual, and social challenges endlessly enjoyable, fascinating, and stimulating. That's easy to say, and it sounds good too, but today I wondered whether my work actually reflects it. So I made a list of some of the things I did in the last working week: investigating a production problem and pairing to file an incident report finding problems in the incident reporting process feeding back in various ways to various people about the reporting process facilitating a cross-team retrospective on the Kubernetes issue that affected my team's service participating in several lengthy calibration workshops as my team merges with another trying to walk a line between presenting my perspective on things I find important and over-contributing providing feedback and advice on the process identifying a

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

Notes on Testing Notes

Ben Dowen pinged me and others on Twitter last week , asking for "a nice concise resource to link to for a blog post - about taking good Testing notes." I didn't have one so I thought I'd write a few words on how I'm doing it at the moment for my work at Ada Health, alongside Ben. You may have read previously that I use a script to upload Markdown-based text files to Confluence . Here's the template that I start from: # Date + Title # Mission # Summary WIP! # Notes Then I fill out what I plan to do. The Mission can be as high or low level as I want it to be. Sometimes, if deeper context might be valuable I'll add a Background subsection to it. I don't fill in the Summary section until the end. It's a high-level overview of what I did, what I found, risks identified, value provided, and so on. Between the Mission and Summary I hope that a reader can see what I initially intended and what actually

The Great Post Office Scandal

  The Great Post Office Scandal by Nick Wallis is a depressing, dispiriting, and disheartening read. For anyone that cares about fairness and ethics in the relationship that business and technology has with individuals and wider society, at least. As a software tester working in the healthcare sector who has signed up to the ACM code of ethics through my membership of the Association for Software Testing I put myself firmly in that camp. Wallis does extraordinarily well to weave a compelling and readable narrative out of a years-long story with a large and constantly-changing cast and depth across subjects ranging from the intensely personal to extremely technical, and through procedure, jurisprudence, politics, and corporate governance. I won't try to summarise that story here (although Wikipedia takes a couple of stabs at it ) but I'll pull out a handful of threads that I think testers might be interested in: The unbelievable naivety which lead to Horizon (the system at th

Agile Testing Questioned

Zenzi Ali has been running a book club on the Association for Software Testing Slack and over the last few weeks we've read Agile Testing Condensed by Janet Gregory and Lisa Crispin. Each chapter was taken as a jumping off point for one or two discussion points and I really enjoyed the opportunity to think about the questions Zenzi posed and sometimes pop a question or two back into the conversation as well. This post reproduces the questions and my answers, lightly edited for formatting. --00-- Ten principles of agile testing are given in the book. Do you think there is a foundational principle that the others must be built upon? In your experience, do you find that some of these principles are less or more important than others?  The text says they are for a team wanting to deliver the highest-quality product they can. If we can regard a motivation as a foundational principle, perhaps that could be it: each of the ten pr

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

Leaps and Boundary Objects

Brian Marick  recently launched a new podcast, Oddly Influenced . I said this about it on Twitter: Boundary Objects, the first episode of @marick's podcast, is thought-provoking and densely-packed with some lovely turns of phrase. I played it twice in a row. Very roughly, boundary objects are things or concepts that help different interest groups to collaborate by being ambiguous enough to be meaningful and motivational to all parties. Wikipedia  elaborates, somewhat formally:  [boundary objects are] both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites ... The creation and management of boundary objects is key in developing and maintaining coherence across intersecting social worlds. The podcast talks about boundary objects in general and then applies the idea to software development specifically, casting acceptance test

Where No-one Else Looks

In yesterday's post, Optimising start of your exploratory testing , Maaret Pyhäjärvi lists anti-patterns she's observed in testers that can lead to shallow outcomes of testing. She ends with this call: Go find (some of) what the others have missed! That strikes a chord. In Toujours Testing I recalled how my young daughter, in her self-appointed role as a Thing Searcher, had asked me how she could find things that no-one else finds. I replied Look where no-one else looks. Which made her happy, but also made me happy because that instinctive response externalised something that had previously been internal.  The phrase has stuck, too, and I recall it when I'm working. It doesn't mean targeting the obscure, although it can mean that.  It also doesn't mean not looking at areas that have previously been covered, although again it can mean that. More, for me, it is about seeking levels of granularity, or perspectives, or methods of engagement, or personas, or data, or im

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

External Brains

A month or two ago, after seeing how I was taking notes and sharing information, a colleague pointed me at Tiego Forte's blog on Building a Second Brain : [BASB is] a methodology for saving and systematically reminding us of the ideas, inspirations, insights, and connections we’ve gained through our experience. It expands our memory and our intellect... That definitely sounded like my kind of thing so I ordered the upcoming book, waited for it to arrive, and then read it in a couple of sittings. Very crudely, I'd summarise it something like this: notes are atomic items, each one a single idea, and are not just textual notes should capture what your gut tells you could be valuable notes should capture what you think you need right now notes should preserve important context for restarting work notes on a topic are bundled in a folder for a Project, Area, or Resource and moved into Archive when they're done. ( PARA )