Skip to main content

Ask a Stupid Equestrian

I soon decided, when asked to contribute the first A day in the life... column for our new internal company newsletter, that my daily grind in words wasn't very interesting. So I wrote this instead, based heavily on Iain McCowatt's excellent blog post (which is part of my team's recommended reading) Spec Checking and Bug Blindness used here with his kind permission.

One day

So this horse walked into a pub. "Why the long face?" asked the chap behind the bar. The horse died a little inside and then said "I've been testing software all day."

"Testing?" the barman chortled, "isn't that just making sure the thing does what it's supposed to?"

The horse bridled at that and trotted away to an empty table where it picked up a pile of beer mats. Back at the bar it arranged three of them into a trefoil, each mat overlapping both of the others. It looked the barman in the eye.

"You can think of it this way," it started. "There's the things we need to do" and it jabbed a fetlock at the first mat, "the things we specified we would do," a point at the second, "and what we implemented," and a final poke at the third mat.

"Hmm ... drink?"


"Red or white?"

"Got any Eck?"

"Eck wine?"

Silence for a moment. The horse raised its eyebrows slightly. The barman pulled a long face and the horse turned back to the mats.

"So the bit where all three overlap, that's where you might imagine the tester does his or her work: we needed it, we planned to do it, we built it, now just check it before we ship it."
It glanced up, "I'll have rum. A treble". The barman wasn't falling for that one... again. He reached under the counter for a glass but saw the horsing shaking its head slowly back and forth so he grudgingly picked a gold cup from a shelf near the optics.

There was no-one else in the place, so the barman put the drink down without moving away. It looked like he was saddled with the horse for the time being. Mistaking stationary for still interested, the horse continued. "Checking that the software does what the spec says could confirm some of that stuff but otherwise it’d find mostly things that we'd said we wanted but hadn't done or had done but done wrong."
"Hmm" the barman said, wondering whether he could check his Facebook without the horse noticing.

"What about finding things that we needed to do but didn't do? We can't find all of those by checking items off the spec and you can bet that there'll be some" and it waved its cup towards the first mat. "And some of them we mightn't even know we needed to do."
"Hmmnmmnn?" the barman said distractedly, deciding that probably he couldn't.

But the horse had got the bit between its teeth now, "and then there's the things that we've implemented that we didn't ask for." The third mat. "Sometimes that's good - we might end up with a bit of extra useful functionality. But we might also have done some stuff we didn't want to do, like changing existing behaviour somewhere else in the product, and we've only got a limited amount of time to look for it, so how should we go about it?"
It stared at the barman who was having a mare. Still no other punters.

"And then we might have implemented stuff that wasn’t needed. It might be in the spec – or not - but it turns out that it's the wrong thing to do anyway. Perhaps customers don't want that. Perhaps it interacts badly with something else, perhaps ... " and it stopped and dropped its head as it gestured in the general direction of the third mat again, a tear in its eye " ... where's the manual for finding that, eh?"
"Time for you to get on your way, I think" said the barman, walking round to the horse and (infeasibly, but no more so than a horse holding a cup and drinking rum) putting his arm round its shoulders to give it a hand.

"And as for stable builds ..." but from long experience the barman knew it ill behooved him to let the horse get on to that so he ushered it towards the door and turfed it out.



The following day

So this horse walked into a pub. "Why the long face?" asked the chap behind the bar.

Silence for a moment. The barman raised his eyebrows slightly. The horse raised its eyebrows slightly.


  1. Reminds me of slides 50 + 51 of the RST course (

  2. @Chris: You're right. I guess the motivation is similar: to highlight that testing can be a broader activity than many people realise (some testers included).

  3. The 'Required/designed/delivered' trichotomy appeared in my 1993 paper, "A Unified Approach to System Functional Testing" for the first Eurostar conference.

    Coincidentally, there are also big hints at using examples (I called them behaviours) to validate requirements and double as test cases. Nowadays, we'd call that Behaviour-Driven Requirements :O)

  4. @Paul: Good shout. The core idea in the Pawnbrokers Model is essentially the same as here. Did you develop it any further outside of that paper?

  5. Afraid not. It was a bit of fun really, but the overlapping and underlapping(?) Sets trigger interesting questions e.g. Required, not designed, delivered?


Post a Comment

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 )