Support Your Test Team

If you can keep your head when all about you customers and colleagues are losing theirs and blaming it on you then, with apologies to Kipling, you'll stand a decent chance of being comfortable in tech support.

I often think about the crossover between support and test and I've recruited people with support experience to work as testers more than once. I've also noted before that I have my test team watch all support traffic and it's common in many companies for testers to be brought in for advice and to test fixes for issues that start as support tickets. But being the owner of a hard-to-reproduce high-value support issue, without a buffer between you and the customer who is experiencing the pain, being the one responsible for working out what the issue is and identifying a workaround adds piquancy and urgency and pressure to the diagnostic task.

This kind of thing is often more constrained than the average test mission. In this scenario you know that there's an issue. You even know some of the symptoms, but you usually have a distorted lens through which to view it, a delay on your interactions with it ... If you can wait and not be tired by waiting ... restrictions on the questions you can reasonably ask and an understandably limited supply of patience on the part of the customer who frankly just wants the thing to work and who has their own deadlines, usually pressing, which are the reason they've had to open your application again for the first time in months. You also have to split your time between looking for a solution and looking for a workaround. Prioritisation and timeliness are key.

In one case I can recall, a customer was having difficulties with a file we'd supplied which, when applied to their installation, caused a fatal error. There was a known issue with files of this kind being corrupted in transfer or deployment and, using Occam's Razor, we initially explored that as the most likely cause - without success.

With the customer's approval, and the aim of getting a quick win for them, we tried some sledgehammer workarounds such as reinstallation and a change of host machine. I also suggested a somewhat horrid fix that the customer understood would work - with some compromises - but decided not to take up immediately.

The customer thought that it was probably a build issue - they had just upgraded - but I was less certain because I had set up a local shadow which was running with the same file the customer had (confirmed by md5sum) with no ill effects. Creating a local copy of the customer environment is often a sensible - if potentially expensive - tactic although ensuring that you've matched them in all significant respects is a challenge in its own right, given that you don't yet know what is significant.

Regardless of the speculation, the mission now was to get either a workaround or a fix, or both, in short order. I started with the idea that the issue was environmental and explored ways to provoke the problem. In the absence of full information about the customer setup I made assumptions about it and tried to provoke the kinds of effects that locale differences can show, such as problems with file encodings.

By working back from the symptoms I found some issues that exhibited the same behaviour and then spoke to a developer with expertise on the customer platform for pointers about how to provoke those issues directly. He was able to finesse my bug reports but we weren't able to get to the customer issue itself. If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too ...

At the same time, I looked for historical data in bug reports (remember don't just search the open ones) and previous support tickets. I spoke to other members of the support team about a locale issue with another customer at around the same time - but they were clearly unrelated and would have different solutions.

The initial customer report contained several overlapping issues from their own attempts to diagnose the problem and we maintained a dialogue about those, progressively filtering out the ones that we could resolve or at least explain and that appeared not to have a bearing on the main problem.

At this point I asked whether we could have direct access to their installation and the customer was able to provide it, which unusual is but enormously helpful when available. I was able to switch from the meta problem of trying to set up an environment to enable the issue and dive straight into investigating the cause of a problem I could now provoke at will.

I first tried some high-level stuff such as installing different JVMs and running some of our software components by hand to narrow down the area in which the problem might exist. Then I returned to the environment, repeating some of my earlier experiments to see if they gave the same responses on the customer machine. I also did a direct eyeball comparison of all configuration options that I thought might be related to the issue between the customer machine and our local shadow - and some that weren't.

Changing tack again, I inspected our source code, deoxidised my rusty Java and wrote a validator for the file based on the library our software uses. When that failed to show issues I altered my validator to be more like our software but again that showed no issues. This wasn't a disaster, just more data.

While your time is important to your company, the customer's time is important to them, their company and by extension your company. You have to be focussed on getting value for every experiment you carry out ... If you can fill the unforgiving minute with sixty seconds' worth of distance run.

To try to understand the problem space more I reverted to manual work and tried a bunch of different files - not created for this customer, that I knew would not work in this environment but which I had used previously in other installations internally - and I found that under some circumstances I could get further in the interpretation of the file before encountering an error. Exploiting this vector I crafted some more variants of the file and tried them in turn. One resolved the issue.

So now we had a workaround for the customer and a target for the dev team. With knowledge of the change to the file that caused a critical effect on the installation, one of the developers built me an instrumented version of the software with focussed debug around the change. It confirmed enough details to permit further code inspection, informed by the research I'd done, to identify a subtle software issue that required particular environmental settings, particular content in the file and certain temporal dependencies.

Exploratory testing techniques are invaluable in these sorts of cases. The kinds of heuristics and approaches that Rapid Software Testing espouses - factoring; logical vs lateral thinking; plunge in and quit; random fire; critical thinking; questioning your premises; focus/defocus; asking what if? - can keep giving you options to try. You have to be prepared to iterate, to revisit, to expand and contract your search, to investigate all available resources (people, documentation, code inspection) and assimilate them.

Stakeholder interaction is critical too. Live support can be stressful; you have to think on your feet, be professional at all times, provide rationale for the steps you are asking the customer to perform. During an extended support interaction, giving the customer some options is usually appreciated and keeping the customer informed and demonstrating effort and progress, even if only in narrowing down the possibilities, can provide reassurance. You also need to take your experience and learn from it, to feed your gut for next time round. With hindsight, I could have found this issue faster, more directly. I'll bear that in mind in future.

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master; If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim ... If you're a tester looking for a challenge, and to hone your skills, you could, with further apologies to Kipling, do worse than swinging by tech support for a spell, my son.
Image: http://flic.kr/p/7FVs91

Comments

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

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

Risk-Based Testing Averse

Joep Schuurkes started a thread on Twitter last week. What are the alternatives to risk-based testing? I listed a few activities that I thought we might agree were testing but not explicitly driven by a risk evaluation (with a light edit to take later discussion into account): Directed. Someone asks for something to be explored. Unthinking. Run the same scripted test cases we always do, regardless of the context. Sympathetic. Looking at something to understand it, before thinking about risks explicitly. In the thread , Stu Crook challenged these, suggesting that there must be some concern behind the activities. To Stu, the writing's on the wall for risk-based testing as a term because ... Everything is risk based, the question is, what risks are you going to optimise for? And I see this perspective but it reminds me that, as so often, there is a granularity tax in c

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

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

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

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 )

Binary Oppositions

I am totally loving Oddly Influenced, Brian Marick's new podcast. The latest episoide covers ways in which schools of thought and practice can inhibit the cross-fertilisation of ideas. It includes a case study in experimental physics from Peter Galison's book, Image and Logic , where two different approaches to the same particle analysis problem seem to run on separate, parallel tracks: In the 'head to world' tradition, you use your head to carefully construct situations that allow the world to express its subtle truths ... In the 'world to head' tradition, you make yourself ever more sensitive to the world’s self-expressed truths ... The first of these wants to theorise and then craft an experiment using statistics while the latter wants to gather data and try to understand it visually. Marick is pessimistic about the scope for crossover in this kind of situation: How do you bridge traditions that differ on aesthetics, on different standards of what counts as

Result!

Last night I attended a Consequence Scanning workshop at the Cambridge Tester Meetup . In it, Drew Pontikis walked us through the basics of an approach for identifying opportunities and risks and selecting which ones to target for exploitation or mitigation. The originators of Consequence Scanning recommend that it's run as part of planning and design activities with the outcomes being specific actions added to a backlog and a record of all of the suggested consequences for later review. So, acting as a product team for the Facebook Portal pre-launch, we listed potential intended and unintended consequences sorted them into action categories (control, influence, or monitor) chose several consequences to work on explored possible approaches for the action assigned to each selected consequence In the manual there are various resources for prompting participants to think broadly and laterally about consequences. For example, a product can have an effect on people other than its u

Hiccupps

Search This Blog