Test Automation is not Automated Testing

I had more or less the same conversation with Michael Bolton and Pradeep Soundararajan recently and both started with a statement about tool use and automation:

Pradeep:

@testertested: I help testers re-think what they mean by automation. I help them see usage of any tool as automation
@qahiccupps: any tool? A pen and paper is a testing tool..
@testertested: Yes, it does help you make notes, that you refer to for re-exploring the app. Do you see it that way?
@qahiccupps: Yes, a tool but not automation which, for me, requires action w/o my participation. Another: I can use Excel manually (enter formula into every cell) or automated (macros). Tool != automation.
@testertested: So, what about annotation pens and stuff ?
@qahiccupps: Used directly it's manual. Without me (directly) controlling, automation. Not sure if we're missing each other's point?

Michael:

@michaelbolton: Test automation is any use of tools to support testing.
@qahiccupps: pen and paper are tools that I use in testing. Can we regard their use as automation? If so, how?
@michaelbolton: Good question. In general, we refer to electronic machinery, of course. However, consider this aspect of all tools: "We shape (and choose) our tools; thereafter they shape (or choose) us." McLuhan (with my parentheticals)
@qahiccupps: Agree w/that. But I'd hesitate to call anything that doesn't perform actions independently automation. tool !=automation. I can fill every cell in an Excel sheet by typing into them by hand, or I can write a macro.
@michaelbolton: Using Excel itself, however, is a fabulous example of test automation in the sense of any use of tools to support testing.
@qahiccupps: If I only write notes into Excel it's just like pen and paper. The use I make of the tool is key to whether it's automation

Michael has talked about this before in, for example, a blog on automation in ET:

Some people might have a problem with the idea [that exploratory testing can include automation], because of a parsimonious view of what test automation is, or does. To some, test automation is getting the machine to perform the test. I call that checking. I prefer to think of test automation in terms of what we say in the Rapid Software Testing course: test automation is any use of tools to support testing.

The copula verb, for all its slightness, makes strong assertions. In this case: if you use any tool while testing you have performed test automation. But what does the term mean? The Oxford University Press dictionary says this:

Tool: a thing used to help perform a job
Automatic: working by itself with little or no direct human control
Automation: the use or introduction of automatic equipment in a manufacturing or other process

An anecdote from the same blog post describes some places where automation could be part of exploratory work:

[One colleague] got curious about something that he saw [in a program's behaviour]. Curiosity can't be automated. He decided to generate some test values to refine what he had discovered in earlier exploration. Sapient decisions can't be automated. He used Excel, which is a powerful test automation tool, when you use it to support testing. He invented a couple of formulas. Invention can't be automated. The formulas allowed Excel to generate a great big table. The actual generation of the data can be automated.

I don't disagree with any of the assessment and I strongly agree that automation can be used to drive analysis and discovery, amongst other things. I disagree with the claim that (all) tool use is automation.

Tools need not exist at all in the tangible world. Shorthand is a tool, for example. Its utility relies on it being realised in some form by some other tool, say a stenotype or a nail dipped in blood. Although we might argue about whether these secondary tools are or can be automated, can the use of an ephemeral tool like shorthand itself be regarded as automation when the tool itself only exists inside the user's head?

Perhaps that's too obscure. Let's look at something more traditionally called a tool. I'm in the garden and I want to dig a hole. I have a spade but that tool isn't going to dig the hole by itself. It's unlikely that anyone would regard me digging the hole with the spade as garden automation. There's certainly a tool and there's certainly an efficiency to using it over my bare hands, but digging the hole is still manual labour.

In the Twitter thread above Michael said he was thinking of electronic machinery, presumably more generally as something that at least has the potential to operate independently. So let's think about a more sophisticated tool, one where the user does not directly manipulate every operation, but instead controls them by some higher level process. How about a car? It takes around two hours to drive my car to my mum's house. In that time many things happen without my explicit direction - the engine runs through its cycle thousands of times; shock absorbers compress and stretch to smooth out the ride; computers monitor various metrics such as oil level and temperature and report them to my dashboard. And some things happen with my direction but without my knowing exactly what physical actions are performed - I turn the wheel and I think there's probably some kind of rack-and-pinion technology implementing my request, but I don't know the details.

Is driving the car travel automation? Not for me, not by the definitions above. Although much in a car happens independently - to some level of granularity - I cannot leave the car unattended and expect it to get me to my mum's house. Ah yes, but Google notoriously has a driverless car, you say. Yes, and there are functionalities that I would regard as automation in some of today's vehicles too: assisted parallel parking, for example. But even though Google's car can function in an automated fashion, if I got into it and drove it myself that would not be automation.

Tools, used appropriately, are capable of delivering advantages in areas such as reporting, visibility, scalability, scope, quality and quantity of data, communications, coverage, checking and numerous other things that are valuable to a tester. Automation requires tools. Some tools can provide automation. Not every use of such a tool is automation.

Michael was kind enough to read a draft of this post and commented:

We sometimes make provocative statements to get people to question their beliefs. "Any use of tools to support testing" is an encouragement to think expansively. (McLuhan again, on his students: "I don't want them to agree with me. I just want them to think.")

People who respond to this provocative statement typically apply emphasis to the "tool" part. What I'm more interested in is the "any use" part. The intention here is to stop thinking of the role of tools exclusively in terms of automated checks, and start thinking of test automation as "any use of (automated) tools to support testing". In fact, James Bach and I are trying to avoid "automated testing" altogether, and say what we mean: machine checking, and tool-supported testing.

For me, the strength of test automation is any use of tools to support testing, memorable and provocative as it is, is reduced by distractions around tools and their capacity for automation. I prefer this alternative: test automation is not automated testing.
Image: http://flic.kr/p/5GfNfo

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 answ...

How do I Test AI?

Recently a few people have asked me how I test AI. I'm happy to share my experiences, but I frame the question more broadly, perhaps something like this: what kinds of things do I consider when testing systems with artificial intelligence components . I freestyled liberally the first time I answered but when the question came up again I thought I'd write a few bullets to help me remember key things. This post is the latest iteration of that list. Caveats: I'm not an expert; what you see below is a reminder of things to pick up on during conversations so it's quite minimal; it's also messy; it's absolutely not a guide or a set of best practices; each point should be applied in context; the categories are very rough; it's certainly not complete. Also note that I work with teams who really know what they're doing on the domain, tech, and medical safety fronts and some of the things listed here are things they'd typically do some or all of. Testing ...

The Best Programmer Dan Knows

I was pairing with my friend Vernon at work last week, on a tool I've been developing. He was smiling broadly as I talked him through what I'd done because we've been here before. The tool facilitates a task that's time-consuming, inefficient, error-prone, tiresome, and important to get right. Vern knows that those kinds of factors trigger me to change or build something, and that's why he was struggling not to laugh out loud. He held himself together and asked a bunch of sensible questions about the need, the desired outcome, and the approach I'd taken. Then he mentioned a talk by Daniel Terhorst-North, called The Best Programmer I Know, and said that much of it paralleled what he sees me doing. It was my turn to laugh then, because I am not a good programmer, and I thought he knew that already. What I do accept, though, is that I am focussed on the value that programs can give, and getting some of that value as early as possible. He sent me a link to the ta...

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...

Reasonable Doubt

In Your job is to deliver code you have proven to work Simon Willison writes: As software engineers we ... need to deliver code that works — and we need to include proof that it works as well. He is coming at this from the perspective of LLM-assisted coding, but most of what he says applies in general. I think this is a reasonable consise summary of his requirements for developers: Manual happy paths: get the system into an initial state, exercise the code, check that it has the desired effect on the state. Manual edge cases: no advice given, just a note that skill here is a sign of a senior engineer. Automated tests: should demonstrate the change like Manual happy paths but also fail if the change is reverted. He notes that, even though LLM tooling can write automated tests, it's humans who are accountable for the code and it's on us to "include evidence that it works as it should." Coincidentally, just the week before I read his post I told one of my...

On Herding Cats

Last night I was at the Cambridge Tester meetup for a workshop on leadership. It was a two-parter with Drew Pontikis facilitating conversation about workplace scenarios followed by an AMA with a group of experienced managers. I can't come to work this week, my cat died. Drew opened by asking us what our first thoughts would be as managers on seeing that sentence. Naturally, sadness and sympathy, followed by a week ? for a cat ? and I only got a day for my gran! Then practicalities such as maybe there's company policy that covers that , and then the acknowledgement that it's contextual: perhaps this was a long-time emotional support animal . Having established that management decisions are a mixture of emotion, logic, and contingency Drew noted that most of us don't get training in management or leadership then split us into small groups and confronted us with three situations to talk through: Setting personal development goals for others. Dropping a clange...

Great Shot, Kid

This week I've been playing with altwalker , a model-based testing tool. To get the hang of it, I attempted to build a very simple model of a workflow that is supported by the service my team owns. Hacking away at the example code, and looking frequently at the docs, I was able to get up and running in a few hours, creating: a basic model: nodes for system states, edges for operations simple assertions: mainly consistency checks on the states client: HTTP client to implement the operations against the service's API I configured this so that altwalker will perform a random walk of the model, starting state data is randomised, and the client will choose randomly whenever offered an option. Why so much randomness? Because it means that, over successive runs, more of the infinite space of possible workflow executions will be covered. Once I had that basically working I wrote a shell script that would run this loop a number of times: call altwalker ...

Bottom-up or Top-down?

The theme at LLEWT this year was Rules and constraints to ensure better quality. My experience report concerned a team I'd been on for several years which developed (bottom-up) a set of working practices that we called team agreements. The agreements survived "natural" variation such as people leaving and joining and even some structural reorganisation which preserved most of the team members but changed the team's responsibilities or merged in a few people from a disbanded team. The agreements did not, however, persist through a significant round of (top-down) redundancies where the team was merged with two others. I'm interested in thinking about the ways in which constraints on how people work affect the work and whether there are patterns that could help us to apply the right kinds of constraints at times they are likely to be useful. I'm going to use this post to dump my thoughts. My starting po...

LLEWT 2024

This weekend I was at LLEWT 2024, a peer conference on Anglesey , north Wales, discussing communication. Given the day jobs of the participants, it was no surprise that the experience reports and the conversations that followed them mostly focussed on software development contexts. Notes from my presentation are in Express, Listen, and Field . I made sketchnotes (below) for each presentation and a mindmap (above) to try to summarise the whole. Without much reflection yet, I guess I would pull these common high-level threads from the day: There are multiple reasons that communication fails ... like, duh! ... but having multiple strategies for framing a message can help ... and having multiple tactics for delivering a message can help too. Understanding what you want from an interaction is key ... so setting the context to make that more likely is wise ... which might mean meta-conversation, being transparent, or changing your approach...

Exploring It!

This week the test team at Linguamatics held our first internal conference. There was no topic, but three broad categories could be seen in the talks and workshops that were given: experience reports, tooling, and alternative perspectives on our work. (The latter included the life cycle of a bug, and psychology in testing.) My contribution was an experience report looking at how I explore both inside and outside of testing. I've tidied up some of my notes from the prep for it below. There are testing skills that I use elsewhere in my life. Or perhaps there are skills from my life that I bring to testing. Maybe I'm so far down life's road that it's hard to tell quite what started where? Maybe I'm naturally this way and becoming a tester with an interest in improvement amped things up? Maybe I've so tangled up my work, life, and hobby that deciding where one starts and another ends is problematic? The answers to those questions is, I think, almost certai...

Hiccupps

Search This Blog