Skip to main content

In the Context of Context-Driven

I started an enjoyable discussion on Twitter the other day. Here's a brief summary.

So I idly wondered whether it was possible to construct a barber-style paradox around context-driven testing (CDT) and tweeted this:
A Context-Driven tester says that CDT is not applicable on some project, given the context, and tests accordingly. Is this CDT?
I deliberately left this ambiguous. It could mean a few things, including:
  • deciding how to test in the context
  • any testing activities undertaken after evaluation of context 
  • both of the above 
  • all of the work the tester does on that project
I think it's possible to make a case for all of them being CDT based on the original tweet. But it doesn't mean that any particular instance of them must be.

For example, the context-driven tester might not act in a context-driven way at some point (perhaps only context-aware). Or while not doing CDT the context-driven tester might actually be constantly re-evaluating the context looking for a point at which the context changes sufficiently to prefer another approach, i.e. practising CDT. The Twitter thread didn't really explore this aspect.

There was keen discussion about whether it was even possible to find a place that CDT was not appropriate and @huibschoots dug up a link to a Bach/Bolton presentation that suggests a few.

Some testers said that they would always do CDT here. This example from @kengel100:
@qahiccupps @huibschoots @kinofrost if I place myself in this situation there is still a need for CDT. Tester dependent?
In an attempt at clarity, multiple definitions of CDT are given at context-driven-testing.com. One includes this:
The essence of context-driven testing is project-appropriate application of skill and judgment.  
I didn't give any project context. There is none, it's a thought experiment. The context-driven-testing.com web site also says:
Context-driven testers reject the notion of best practices, because they present certain practices as appropriate independent of context. 
So I speculated about whether there was an argument that it is not context-driven to insist on CDT, particularly given that there are some occasions where it's plausible to think that CDT might legitimately not be used. I suppose I'm also thinking about whether asserting that you will always practice context-driven testing effectively makes CDT your best practice.
@kengel100 @huibschoots @kinofrost Interesting variant question. Is it CDT to say that we must approach any problem using CDT? Does a tester self-declared as CD use CDT in all contexts? (i.e. regardless of context)
@kinofrost put his response to the idea that there was a contradiction in having the intention to do CDT irrespective of context nicely:
@qahiccupps @kengel100 @huibschoots It's self-refuting. Like saying there's a car driver who always drives car irrespective of having a car.
So I ended up asking myself whether I was worrying away at a potential something or making a something out of nothing.
@kinofrost @kengel100 @huibschoots Started with a hypothetical corner. Wondering if I'm digging a hypothetical hole. 
Image: https://flic.kr/p/hnimz3

Comments

  1. There is a song by Love & Rockets--the first concert I ever went to that says, "You can not go against nature, because when you do, go against nature that's part of nature to. Our little lives get complicated. It's a simple thing. As simple as a flower, and that's a complicated thing."

    So, just like very long discussions about words, I don't see how this has anything to do with testing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @TestyRedhead.

    I like that you've quoted a lyric because I had one in my mind when I was thinking about this too: "Everything in moderation, including moderation." I first heard it in a song by a long-since-gone band called Jumbo but it's attributed to Oscar Wilde here.

    I guess I disagree that there's no relation to testing here. If nothing else, questioning, probing definitions, challenging established concepts is part of what testing's about.

    I'll chalk one up to the "making a something out of nothing" score on your behalf.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I love a bit of phylosophy in the morning. (Or any time). Like the 'I think therefore I am!'. But dpes that mean a thought truely has a life of it's own; can you be and not think, (I've met a few managers and project leads that seem to show you can be and not think) it can really mess with your head if you over think something like that.

    I would say that the statement that CDT doesn't like Best Practices is to general. You can make a best practice high enough level to still be flexible to cover all/most contexts. But in the end all testing has a context. Even if that context is limited to a set of requriements, or design specs. In the context of the designers intention we design tests to verify every button that they want. I realise this is probably not in the context of context driven testing, but context is just another word for perspective. And perspective, as with context, changes with each individual, each time of day, each location and agenda, and more variables.

    I would vote for 'something out of nothing'. But all in all a good thought exercise

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Ideal Test Plan

A colleague pinged me the other day, asking about an "ideal test plan" and wondering whether I could suggest something. Not without a bit more information, I said. OK, they said. Who needs the plan, for what purpose? I asked. Their response: it's for internal use, to improve documentation, and provide a standard structure. We work in a medical context and have strict compliance requirements, so I wondered aloud whether the plan is needed for audit, or to show to customers? It's not, they replied, it's just for the team. Smiling now, I stopped asking questions and delivered the good news that I had what they were looking for. Yes? they asked, in anticipation. Naturally I paused for dramatic effect and to enhance the appearance of deep wisdom, before saying: the ideal plan is one that works for you. Which is great and all that, but not heavy on practical advice. --00-- I am currently running a project at the Association for Software Testing and there is a plan for

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

69.3%, OK?

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-- "What percentage of our test cases are automated?" There's a lot wrapped up in that question, particularly when it's a metric for monitoring the state of testing. It's not the first time I've been asked either. In my

Why Do They Test Software?

My friend Rachel Kibler asked me the other day "do you have a blog post about why we test software?" and I was surprised to find that, despite having touched on the topic many times, I haven't. So then I thought I'd write one. And then I thought it might be fun to crowdsource so I asked in the Association for Software Testing member's Slack, on LinkedIn , and on Twitter for reasons, one sentence each. And it was fun!  Here are the varied answers, a couple lightly edited, with thanks to everyone who contributed. Edit: I did a bit of analysis of the responses in Reasons to be Cheerful, Part 2 . --00-- Software is complicated, and the people that use it are even worse. — Andy Hird Because there is what software does, what people say it does, and what other people want it to do, and those are often not the same. — Andy Hird Because someone asked/told us to — Lee Hawkins To learn, and identify risks — Louise Perold sometimes: reducing the risk of harming people —

Testing is Knowledge Work

  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-- "We need some productivity metrics from testers" OK. I'd like to help you meet your need if I can but to do that I'll need to ask a few questions. Let's start with these: Who needs the metrics? Is there a particular pr

My Favourite Tool

Last week I did a presentation to a software testing course at EC Utbildning in Sweden titled Exploring with Automation where I demoed ways in which I use software tools to help me to test. Following up later, one of the students asked whether I had a favourite tool. A favourite tool? Wow, so simple but sooo deep!  Asking for a favourite tool could make a great interview question, to understand the breadth and depth of a candidate's knowledge about tools, how they think about an apparently basic request with deep complexity beneath (favourite for what task, on what basis, in what contexts, over what timescale?  what is a tool anyway?) and how they formulate a response to take all of that into account. I could truthfully but unhelpfully answer this question with a curt Yes or No. Or I could try and give something more nuanced. I went for the latter. At an extremely meta level I would echo Jerry Weinberg in Perfect Software : The number one te

Trying to be CEWT

I attend, enjoy, hopefully contribute to, and get a lot from, the local tester meetups and Lean Coffee  in Cambridge. But I'd had the thought kicking around for a long time that I'd like to try a peer workshop inspired by MEWT , DEWT , LEWT and the like. I finally asked a few others, including the local meetup organisers, and got mostly positive noises, so I decided to give it a go. I wrote a short statement to frame the idea, based on LEWT's: CEWT ( Cambirdge Exploratory Workshop on Testing ) is an exploratory peer workshop. We take the view that discussions are more interesting than lectures. We enjoy diverse ideas, and limit some activities in order to work with more ideas. and proposed a mission for an initial attempt to validate it locally on a small scale. Other local testers helped to refine the details in usual the testing ways - you know: criticism, questions, thought experiments, challenges, comparisons, mockery and the rest - and a list of potential at

Fail Here or Fail There

The First Law of Systems-Survival, according to John Gall, is this: A SYSTEM THAT IGNORES FEEDBACK HAS ALREADY BEGUN THE PROCESS OF TERMINAL INSTABILITY Laws are all-caps in Systemantics . Not just laws, but also theorems, axioms, and corollaries. There are many of them so here's another (location 2393-2394): JUST CALLING IT “FEEDBACK” DOESN’T MEAN THAT IT HAS ACTUALLY FED BACK There was a point when I realised, as the capitalised aphorisms rolled by, that I was sinking into the warm and sweetly-scented comforting foamy bathwater of confirmatory bias. Seen, seen, seen! Tick, tick, tick! I took the opportunity to let myself know that I'd been caught in the act, and that I needed to get out of the tub and start to challenge the content.  Intervening at that moment was congruent: I was in a context where I would accept it and prepared to change because of it. Of course, I enjoyed the deep irony of nodding along with Gall when he talked about

Testing and Words

  The other day I got tagged on a Twitter thread started by Wicked Witch of the Test about people with a background in linguistics who’ve ended up in testing. That prompted me to think about the language concepts I've found valuable in my day job, then I started listing them, and then realised how many of them I've mentioned here over the years .   This post is one of an occasional series collecting some of those thoughts.  --00-- In The Complete Plain Words , Ernest Gowers notes, acidly, that: What appears to be a sloppy or meaningless use of words may well be a completely correct use of words to express sloppy or meaningless ideas. It surely sounds trite to say it but our choice of words can make a significant difference to how well our message is understood, and how we are judged. We choose from amongst those words we know, our lexicons . The more my lexicon agrees with yours, the greater our chance of us achieving a shared understanding when we converse. But lexic

Use the Force Multiplier

On Fridays I pair with doctors from Ada 's medical quality team. It's a fun and productive collaboration where I gain deeper insight into the way that diagnostic information is encoded in our product and they get to see a testing perspective unhindered by domain knowledge. We meet at the same time each week and decide late on our focus, choosing something that one of us is working on that's in a state where it can be shared. This week we picked up a task that I'd been hoping to get to for a while: exploring an API which takes a list of symptoms and returns a list of potential medical conditions that are consistent with those symptoms.  I was interested to know whether I could find small input differences that led to large output differences. Without domain knowledge, though, I wasn't really sure what "small" and "large" might mean. I prepared an input payload and wrote a simple shell script which did the following: make a