Skip to main content

Toujours Testing

Some time ago, maybe even a year ago now, one of my team said that she had been watching me. I acted cool - although that may have been the onset of a cold sweat - but fortunately my dark secrets remain mine and her observation was simply that, to her mind, I am always testing. She gave a couple of examples:
  • When the test team were being given an expert-level product demo, I took notes not only on the functionality but also on the way that that information was being communicated to us, verbally and in slides, and I fed that back to the business because what we were watching was similar to the content of our customer demos.
  • When I set a piece of work - for myself or others - I will frequently have a secondary aim other than simply getting the piece of work done, and that aim often has an evaluation or assessment element to it.

And on reflection I think she's right. This is something that I have done, and do do. These days, I believe, I do it more explicitly than I used to because, over a long period of time and particularly by observing myself, I realised that this was my intuition and instinct, and I have found it personally valuable.

Right now at work we're considering some potentially significant changes to the way we organise ourselves and I'm spending time thinking about possibilities and exploring ramifications of them, mostly as thought experiment and by talking to members of the team. When I had the opportunity to try, in a small way, one of the possibilities, I took it. It's a possibility I instinctively shy away from and so I was very interested in my reaction to it. And later I  followed up with a recipient of my action too, to understand their feelings and explain why I did what I did.

I like to make myself and my work open for others to test and, when I do, the questions that follow mean that I learn things and, as a team, we do a better job overall. I am happy when someone on my team finds one of my mistakes and we correct it, although it took me some time to see and understand my feelings of defensiveness in those kinds of situations. (And they never go away.) Through this kind of self-testing I have arrived at knowledge about myself that I can codify and use to guide how I want to behave in future.

I also test myself by issuing challenges. Talking at EuroSTAR 2015 was the culmination of a 12-month challenge to try to get over increasing nervousness at public speaking. (I'll have more to say about that another time.)

I try hard to write reports in terms of testable assertions. And then, before delivery, I test them. I'll frequently find places where I've made too general or specific a claim, or I might feel that I need to go and look again at some data to check that I can back up what I'm saying. For instance, in an earlier draft of this post, the next paragraph started "So, yes, I am always testing ..." But it doesn't start that way any more because in proofing I asked myself "really, always testing? Always?"

So perhaps I can agree that I am always checking, challenging, exploring, investigating, ... Maybe that's why testing felt like a good fit when I stumbled into it. I like the spirit of the suggestion and - to the extent I'm prepared to commit to a literal "always" - I am always testing. Or, to tune it still further, I am always doing things that I think are consistent with and conducive to being a good and improving tester.

So I was particularly intrigued to read Harnessed Tester writing about wanting to switch testing off:
... how do you switch off the tester in you (if you do even manage it at all)? Are you able to function in the “Real World” without slipping into your profession or do you find yourself testing things you shouldn’t or don’t need to test? Do you even see it as a bad thing?
I don't ever want this to be switched off.  I want to work it, to exercise it, to train it. I seek out opportunities to put it to use. I love this quote from George Carlin:
The brain is a goal-seeking and problem-solving machine, and if you put into it the parameters of what it is you need or want or expect, and you feed it, it will do a lot of work without you even noticing.
I quoted it in Your Testing is a Joke where I described how I use humour as just such a training device, as a tool for feeding my brain.

I don't ever want this to be switched off. Since having children, I have become interested in how they see and interact with the world. I encourage my two daughters to have their enquiring mind turned on at all times and I praise them when they find a new perspective or ask a question or seek information. I am prepared (most times) to keep answering those long chains of why questions until they get bored, and I try find opportunities to provoke thoughts that will start their thinking process off.

I don't ever want this to be switched off. Last Christmas I bought my family a shared present of How to be an Explorer of the World and we've done several of the experiments together. Last month we went on an adventure walk in Ely.  My youngest daughter was particularly inspired by one task that I set: find something hidden. She's since begun to read Pippi Longstocking and styles herself a "Thing Searcher" and, while I was weeding the drive (and on the side listening to an interview with James Bach) last weekend, she interrupted me:
Dad, how can I find things that no-one else finds?
You could look where no-one else looks

And so that's exactly what she did, initially by standing on a wheelie bin to inspect the top of the hedge.

I don't want this to ever be switched off. What I want is for asking, probing, looking, questioning, reviewing, being creative, and exploring to be second nature. I think that these are valuable skills in life, but also that if they become what you just do  then, as a tester, you can more often get on with a task and not spend explicit time on the techniques.

I don't ever want this to be switched off. However, where I think that Harnessed Tester has got a point, and it's a strong one, is that it's important to be able to deploy these skills appropriately, to make sensible use of them, to report your findings from it in a way that's acceptable and beneficial to you, to whoever you are dealing with and to the context you find yourself in.

And that, by Weinberg's definitions, is about acting congruently, (see e.g. Managing Teams Congruently) which is one of the challenges I have set for myself and have been working on for the last couple of years.

And I've told my team that I'm dong it.

And I know that they are watching...


Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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

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

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

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