Can The Modeller Control The View?

One of the reasons that software testing is challenging, both intellectually and practically, is that the information about the state of the system under test is partial. It's part of the testing role to formulate a model (or, more usually, a cloud of overlapping, incomplete and contradictory models) that represent our best view of the system at any given time and we've developed a collection of monochrome boxes that reflect the idea that access to source code can help make sense of it. But even that doesn't equate to an understanding of the model that the software has when it operates. For example:

The tester may not follow the source code (completely).
External libraries may implement a substantial part of the functionality but appear minimally in the source.
Interactions with other layers, such as the operating system for file operations, will form part of the model without being part of the codebase.
If the source code is compiled, it may be optimised in ways that contradict the tester's understanding.

And the tester isn't the only person without a clear idea of the system's take on the world. Some end users would find value in understanding the software states and how they are transitioned. Even developers would welcome a way to see the bigger picture easily when they're in code they don't modify often.

An aside. A few weeks ago, during heavy rain, I heard a rapid and repetitive thudding on our flat kitchen roof. I assumed was a drip and when the rain had stopped I got up and had a look. There were two obvious candidates: a join in the guttering between us and next door and a TV aerial pointing slightly below the horizontal. The weather was dry but I know about soak testing, so I poured a bucket of water over the aerial and another into the guttering which prompted water droplets forming on the joint and falling in a rhythmic way.

I'm no guttering expert (although as a student I once got mistaken for a tramp; that's a different kind of gutter) but I could see that a clip on a plastic band that applied pressure to the two pipes had cracked, opening up the seal. I squirted some sealant into the joint and forced the clip shut.

It broke.

After cursing for a while, I drilled through the band and the guttering, put a bolt through the hole and tightened a nut onto it. Pouring more water in showed no leak so I put some grease on the nut and bolt to waterproof them for the future me revisting the cheap and cheerful repair and made myself a nice cup of tea.

And the point of this DIY yarn? While I was on the roof it occurred to me that my model of the system I was testing and working with was very close to being the system itself. I can touch or visualise the entire thing easily. Sure, there are levels beyond my comprehension - I don't understand the chemical or physical properties of the materials used to manufacture the guttering, the nut and bolt or the clip but I have general experience of plastics, metals and so on that covers enough of that to give me what I need.

Even considering the wider systems in which this is a small component, I could initially see that there were multiple candidates for the source of the drip and latterly recognise that when it gets wet the bolt might rust which would make further maintenance more difficult.

That's not to suggest that all software can be reduced to the complexity of a joint between two half-pipes or that all physical things can be analysed simply by looking and interacting - I wouldn't have a chance with the engine in my car, for example. But, it is the case that the more of the underlying thing that can be inspected, the less effort is required to create the initial models and the more time can be spent on refining and testing them.

So I'm going to be giving myself some time to think what we can do to make the model the software I'm testing has of its state - or, more realistically, the sub-models it has of the bits of state of interest at any given time - more available and useful to the testers and other users.

For the record, I noted down my initial thoughts while I was writing this:

when reporting derived metrics the raw data should be available too,
logging should be as complete as possible or (to some sensible level) complete logging should be available,
log time stamps from different components should be in step,
error and warning messages should be precise, clear and informative,
similar operations on the model should be similar operations in the view,
similar structures (semantically and/or physically) should have similar realisations in the product,
naming conventions should be consistent and transparent from the UI through the variables in the code to the model itself,
any extra reporting must be trustworthy, and the trust should be economic to establish, or else we'll have an additional test burden.

These seem to be concerned with consistency and testability. Where else should I be looking?
Image: http://flic.kr/p/bpTUr

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rage Against the Machinery

I often review and collaborate on unit tests at work. One of the patterns I see a lot is this: there are a handful of tests, each about a page long the tests share a lot of functionality, copy-pasted the test data is a complex object, created inside the test the test data varies little from test to test. In Kotlin-ish pseudocode, each unit test might look something like this: @Test fun `test input against response for endpoint` () { setupMocks() setupTestContext() ... val input = Object(a, OtherObject(b, c), AnotherObject(d)) ... val response = someHttpCall(endPoint, method, headers, createBodyFromInput(input) ) ... val expected = Object(w, OtherObject(x, y), AnotherObject (z)) val output = Object(process(response.getField()), otherProcess(response.getOtherField()), response.getLastField()) assertEquals(expected, output) } ... While these tests are generally functional, and I rarely have reason to doubt that they

A Qualified Answer

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 , 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-- "Whenever possible, you should hire testers with testing certifications" Interesting. Which would you value more? (a) a candidate who was sent on loads of courses approved by some organisation you don't know and ru

README

This week at work my team attended a Myers Briggs Type Indicator workshop. Beforehand we each completed a questionnaire which assigned us a personality type based on our position on five behavioural preference axes. For what it's worth, this time I was labelled INFJ-A and roughly at the mid-point on every axis. I am sceptical about the value of such labels . In my less charitable moments, I imagine that the MBTI exercise gives us each a box and, later when work shows up, we try to force the work into the box regardless of any compatiblity in size and shape. On the other hand, I am not sceptical about the value of having conversations with those I work with about how we each like to work or, if you prefer it, what shape our boxes are, how much they flex, and how eager we are to chop problems up so that they fit into our boxes. Wondering how to stretch the workshop's conversational value into something ongoing I decided to write a README for me and

Hiccupps

Search This Blog