Skip to main content

Testing For Me




I spoke at UKSTAR 2018 this week, an eight-minute talk in a Storytelling track. This post is a prettied-up version of the notes I made for it along with some of the slides. The full slide deck is in the Media page.

My story is called The Anatomy of a Definition of Testing. It's not a suspense story though, so I'll give you the definition right up front:
Testing is the pursuit of relevant incongruity.
That is, for me, testing is the pursuit of relevant incongruity. But how did I get there?

Well, the journey started with Explore It! by Elisabeth Hendrickson, a great book about exploratory testing which has, near the beginning, this definition:
Tested = Checked + Explored
It's finessed a little by
Neither checking nor exploring is sufficient on its own
and the idea that testing is to
... interact with the software or system, observe its actual behavior, and compare that to your expectations.
Interestingly, the definition doesn't really play a significant part in the rest of the book, but as I was reading I kept on returning to it, asking myself questions like these:


Eventually I thought I'd ask Elisabeth whether she could help me out (she said she would!) and we exchanged a few emails, and that helped me to clarify my thoughts. But during the conversation, I began to wonder was this process, of thinking about testing, itself testing? I mean, I was doing things that were consistent with things I do when testing:


But was I really testing? By Elisabeth's definition, I wasn't sure that I could say I was. But it felt a lot like testing. So I went looking for other definitions and found loads!


And I recognise aspects of all of those in my testing, but none of them capture all that testing is for me. Reflecting further, I remembered a talk that Rikard Edgren gave at EuroSTAR 2015 where he said this beautiful thing:
Testing is simple: you understand what is important and then you test it.
Adam Knight has talked and written about Fractal Exploratory testing, and describes it like this:
as each flaw ... is discovered ... [a] mini exploration will result in a more targeted testing exploration around this feature area
To me, they're both talking about how investigation of one area leads to investigation in a subset of that area, and in a subset of that area. A kind of traversal through the testing space where the actions that are performed at any level are similar. And I recognise that too, but it's not all that testing is. For me.

I tried to draw my testing on a feature. It looked like this.


Sometimes multiple activities feed into another. Sometimes one activity feeds into multiple others. Activities can run in parallel, overlap, be serial. A single activity can have multiple intended or accidental outcomes ...

I tried to draw it again. It looked like this:


A vision of an attempt to somehow keep a lid on the ambiguity, and the unknowns, and the complexity in order to be able to get on and test.

A colleague pointed me at a drawing by John Bach of his testing.


That scribble on the left is not necessarily confusion and chaos, but cycling, cross-checking, confirming, until a course of action that seems propitious can be identified and followed out to the right with occasions when exploration goes deep down. And, naturally, I recognise that in my testing too. But it isn't all that testing is for me.

So, without a definition but with a lot of thoughts about what I wanted from my definition I tried to list factors of testing and then come up with a definition that covers them all.


And I thought about it for a good long time. I mean, really long. And eventually out popped my definition:
Testing is the pursuit of relevant incongruity.
But that's a bit of a mouthful. Let's unpack it a little:


Incongruity: Oxford Dictionaries define this as "not in harmony or keeping with the surroundings". I interpret lack of harmony as a potential problem and lack of keeping as an actual problem, and those two interpretations are interesting and useful in testing.


Pursuit: Again, there are two senses that capture important aspects of testing for me. You can pursue something that you don't know is there and that you may never find, like a dream. Or you can pursue the solution to a problem that you know you have, that's right in front of you.

Why not some other verb? For me, an investigation has identified something to investigate, finding requires something to be found and I want to be able to say I tested even if I found no issues, exploration can work but I don't want my definition to be thought of as a definition of exploratory testing, much as I love it.


Relevant: if this work doesn't matter to anyone, why are we doing it? Whoever that is can help us to understand whether any incongruities we identify are valuable to them, relevant to the project.

So that's my definition:
Testing is the pursuit of relevant incongruity.
Notice that it says nothing about particular techniques or methods, or products, or systems. It exists, deliberately, in a space where it must be applied in context, at a time, for a purpose.

But what do I do with it?

Well, any time I'm working I can ask myself whether what I'm doing is contributing the pursuit of relevant incongruity. If it is, I'm testing — I still have the question of whether I'm testing the right things, at the right time but that's a different problem for another story.

If I'm not in pursuit of relevant incongruity I can ask whether I should be, and why. Sometimes it's legit to take off your tester hat and do something else, project housekeeping for example, because it needs doing, because you've got the skills, because you can be most efficient, because it's your turn, or whatever. But sometimes it can provoke me into thinking that I'm not doing what I should be.

Which is great, and I buzzed along very nicely using it. And then I heard Michael Bolton say this on the Quality Remarks podcast:
The goal of testing is identifying problems that matter
And I thought "Hello! That feels pretty familiar!" Although "problems" loses the subtlety of "incongruity", and "finding" I already said I have some reservations about, and note that he's talking about the "goal" of testing, not testing itself. But still, there's a similar sentiment here, and look how much snappier it is than mine!

So I asked him about it, and he said "many things stay in the mind more easily when they can be expressed concisely and snappily."

Which is true to my experience, and also very useful, because it emphasises his different need. He's a teacher, and he wants to share his description and have his pupils remember it. And that's OK, it keeps me humble: I shouldn't impose my view of testing on others, and other views can be just as valid.

And so that's my definition:
Testing is the pursuit of relevant incongruity.
It's my definition to help me do what I need to do in my context. It's for me. But I hope it was of some interest to you...
Image: Jit Gosai (via Twitter)

Comments

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