The Anatomy of a Definition of Testing

At CEWT 3 I offered a definition of testing up for discussion. This is it:

Testing is the pursuit of actual or potential incongruity

As I said there, I was trying to capture something of the openness, the expansiveness of what testing is for me: there is no specific technique; it is not limited to the software; it doesn't have to be linear; there don't need to be requirements or expectations; the same actions can contribute to multiple paths of investigation at the same time; it can apply at many levels and those levels can be distinct or overlapping in space and time.

And these are a selection of the comments and questions that it prompted before, during and after the event, loosely grouped:

Helicopter view

it is sufficiently open that people could buy into it, and read into it, particularly non-testers.
it's accurate and to the point.
it has the feel of Weinberg's definition of a problem.
it sounds profound but I'm not sure whether there is any depth.
it seems very close to the regular notion of targeting information/unknowns.

Coverage

can not testing be part of this idea of testing?
how does the notion of tacit testing (from CEWT 3 discussion) fit in?
Kaner talks about balancing freedom and responsibility in testing. Is that covered here?
the definition doesn't talk about risk.

Practical utility

it couldn't be used to help someone new to testing decide what to do when testing.
I could imagine putting this onto a sticky and trying to align my actions with it.

Definitional

what do you mean by pursuit?
incongruity is too complex a word.
what other words could replace testing in the definition and it still hold?
when I see or I wonder about whether it's exclusive (in the Boolean sense).

In this post I'm going to talk about just the words. I spent a deal of time choosing my words - and that in itself is a warning sign. If I have to graft to find words whose senses are subtly tuned to achieve just the interpretation that I want, then I worry that others will easily have a different interpretation.

And, despite this being a definition of testing for me, it's interesting to observe how often I appeal to my feelings and desires in the description below. Could the degree of personal investment compromise the possibility of it having general appeal or utility, I wonder.

"pursuit"

Other definitions use words like search, explore, evaluate, investigate, find out, ... I was particularly keen to find a verb that captured two aspects of testing for me: finding out what is there, and digging into what has been found.

What I like about pursuit is that it permits (at least to me) both, and additionally conveys a sense of chasing something which might be elusive, itinerant, latent or otherwise hard to find. Oxford Dictionaries has these definitions, amongst others of pursue:

follow or chase (someone or something)
continue to investigate or explore (an idea or argument)

These map onto my two needs in ways that other verbs don't:

search: feels more about the former and less about the latter.
investigate: feels more natual when there's a thing to investigate.
explore: could possibly do duty for me (and it's popular in testing definitions) but exploratory testing can be perceived as cutting out other kinds of testing and I don't want that interpretation.
evaluate: needs data; pursuit can gather data.
find out: feels like it has finality in it. To reflect the fact that testing is unlikely to be complete I'd want to say something like "Testing is the attempt to find out about actual or potential incongruity"

"incongruity"

As one of the criticisms of my definition points out, this word is not part of most people's standard lexicon. Oxford Dictionaries says that it means this:

Not in harmony or keeping with the surroundings or other aspects of something.

I like it because it permits nuance in the degree to which something needs to be out of place: it could be completely wrong, or just feel a bit odd in its context. But the price I pay for the nuance is the lack of common currency. On balance I accepted this in order to keep the definition short.

"actual or potential"

I felt unhappy with a definition that didn't include this, such as:

Testing is the pursuit of incongruity

because I wanted testing's possibilities to include suggesting that there might be a problem. If the definition of incongruity I am using permitted possible disharmony then I'd have been happier with this shorter variant.

I have subsequently realised that I am, to some extent, reflecting a testing/checking distinction here too: a check with fixed expectations can find actual incongruity while testing could in addition find potential incongruity.

However, the entire definition is, for me, in the context of the relative rule - so any incongruities of any kind are tied to a context, person, time - and also the need to govern the actions in the pursuit by some notions of what is important to the people who are important to whatever is being tested.

But, even given that, I still find it hard to accept the definition without potential. Perhaps because it flags the lack of certainty inherent in much testing.
Image: https://flic.kr/p/6Hkgyy

Edit: Olekssii Burdin wrote his own definition of testing after reading this, and Harnessed Tester offers his here too.

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