Skip to main content

Dishing the Dirt


The four presentations at CEWT #7 were on the topic of Dirty Testing Secrets. Here's my brief summary.

According to Karo Stoltzenburg, we testers have a bad case of hubris about the uniqueness and value of our work. Not to put too fine a point on it, half of what we do is pointless and in any case could be done by someone else. Testers, she says, pride themselves on questioning, communicating and facilitating communication, and finding the important bugs but really they should find a bit of time to take a long, hard look at themselves.

Questions? She's heard better from developers, subject matter experts, product owners. Testers have no monopoly on critical thinking and people in other roles have information and experience to bring to the table that testers often won't. Communication? Sure, it's common for testers to bring people together but we're also often then an extra node in the information flow network, a contributor to the cacophony of Chinese whispers rattling round any org. And bugs? Pah, who cares that there's 37 different edge cases three levels down in some barely used dialog? Great creativity on your colour-coded mind map of a zillion test cases, oh wise testing master, but which paths through the product do users actually care about?

The resulting discussion ranged wide, covering the value of connecting other people and then perhaps dropping out, the need to keep at least one eye on the big picture, exploratory testing as a core skill of testers, not blocking others from testing, the trade off between reporting all the things and not reporting something that turns out important, teams owning quality, and the outcome for the customer being paramount. (Blog post.)

There's a famous quote in marketing, attributed to John Wannamaker: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half."  How could we know in advance which half of the testing not to do? I asked a similar question a few years ago: testing can’t find all the bugs, so which ones shouldn’t we look for?

You can't get to know what testing is without doing it. That's the dirty secret at the heart of Sime Simic's talk. A tester new to testing starts from a very low base, with many questions to answer about the product, the environment, the company, the users, the sales proposition, their team ... and themselves. The irony is that an experienced tester on a new project, or product, or moving to a new company has many of the same questions.

Sure, the old hand will have some experience, but they also have the extra layer of complication that they don't know which pieces of that are relevant to the new role. How can a tester get credibility and respect, learn to trade cost and value, be efficient, be effective? Only by doing and reflecting, and not rushing to get there.

Again, the conversation flowed, this time passing through getting feedback to understand how others see you and your work, building relationships with developers (particularly), the need to raise interesting things to people who matter, outcomes rather than outputs in spite of pressure to produce the latter, using the flexibility that the tester role permits to go to where the value can be found, and the granularity effect on value: how high value to a company can be low to a team or an individual.

Mark Bunce's experience report described joining a project to implement crucial business logic with a mixture of rule-based and machine learning technology. When Mark came on board the system was biased in favour of the machine learning component and performance, in terms of both accuracy and speed, was poor. There were no testers.

He built up a test team and broke down the work the system was doing to see just where the machine learning was actually adding value and where rules could do better. Testers are certainly not the only people who can apply critical thinking, but they sure helped on this project where performance is now dramatically better and the proportion of logic implemented by machine learning is dramatically lower.

After Mark's talk we dove into details of the particular system and the crude but effective statistical analysis that helped to show where the holes were. We wondered about the quantity and representativeness of the test data sets used to exercise systems like this. Random selections of deidentified production data is good, but can't be the whole story; people still need to look at the system and the outputs it produces. Another interesting angle was the ethical question of getting subject matter experts to train a machine learning system that is designed to replace them. What motivation do they have to help it to do a good job?

My own talk is written up in We Don't Know?

Comments

  1. I commented on Karo's own blog:

    Yes, all the good things you describe testers doing could be done elsewhere, and by other people, But those things are not usually on those people’s job descriptions. For devs, and product owners, designers and other stakeholders, asking the questions you’ve described fall into the “nice to have” category.

    And for every time they ask the question, there may well be five or ten occasions when they don’t, because “I’ll do it later” or “I have more important things to do right now” or “But that’ll delay deployment” or “I’ll look silly if I ask that”.

    And so that’s why we have testers. Testers are there to ask the difficult questions. They don’t have anything more important to do right now. They’d rather defer deployment than release something they know hasn’t been adequately tested. And they don’t care abut looking silly to colleagues.

    And it’s better that testers ask these questions than you come to a point where the CEO stands up in the Board, waving a newspaper with a damaging 24-point headline about your product, and they ask this question: “Why wasn’t this found in testing?”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Robert. I'll look forward to Karo's reply over on her blog. For me, I think, asking the question about the value of testing in the way Karo did is interesting. It can provoke us into thinking about what we do, what constraints we accept, and why.

      I had a similar experience on a similar topic here: #GoTesting

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Can Code, Can't Code, Is Useful

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-- "If testers can’t code, they’re of no use to us" My first reaction is to wonder what you expect from your testers. I am immediately interested in your working context and the way

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 answer would be almost meaningless and certa

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

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

Postman Curlections

My team has been building a new service over the last few months. Until recently all the data it needs has been ingested at startup and our focus has been on the logic that processes the data, architecture, and infrastructure. This week we introduced a couple of new endpoints that enable the creation (through an HTTP POST) and update (PUT) of the fundamental data type (we call it a definition ) that the service operates on. I picked up the task of smoke testing the first implementations. I started out by asking the system under test to show me what it can do by using Postman to submit requests and inspecting the results. It was the kinds of things you'd imagine, including: submit some definitions (of various structure, size, intent, name, identifiers, etc) resubmit the same definitions (identical, sharing keys, with variations, etc) retrieve the submitted definitions (using whatever endpoints exist to show some view of them) compare definitions I submitted fro

Build Quality

  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-- "When the build is green, the product is of sufficient quality to release" An interesting take, and one I wouldn't agree with in general. That surprises you? Well, ho

Make, Fix, and Test

A few weeks ago, in A Good Tester is All Over the Place , Joep Schuurkes described a model of testing work based on three axes: do testing yourself or support testing by others be embedded in a team or be part of a separate team do your job or improve the system It resonated with me and the other testers I shared it with at work, and it resurfaced in my mind while I was reflecting on some of the tasks I've picked up recently and what they have involved, at least in the way I've chosen to address them. Here's three examples: Documentation Generation We have an internal tool that generates documentation in Confluence by extracting and combining images and text from a handful of sources. Although useful, it ran very slowly or not at all so one of the developers performed major surgery on it. Up to that point, I had never taken much interest in the tool and I could have safely ignored this piece of work too because it would have been tested by

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

Test Now

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-- "When is the best time to test?" Twenty posts in , I hope you're not expecting an answer without nuance? You are? Well, I'll do my best. For me, the best time to test is when there

Vanilla Flavour Testing

I have been pairing with a new developer colleague recently. In our last session he asked me "is this normal testing?" saying that he'd never seen anything like it anywhere else that he'd worked. We finished the task we were on and then chatted about his question for a few minutes. This is a short summary of what I said. I would describe myself as context-driven . I don't take the same approach to testing every time, except in a meta way. I try to understand the important questions, who they are important to, and what the constraints on the work are. With that knowledge I look for productive, pragmatic, ways to explore whatever we're looking at to uncover valuable information or find a way to move on. I write test notes as I work in a format that I have found to be useful to me, colleagues, and stakeholders. For me, the notes should clearly state the mission and give a tl;dr summary of the findings and I like them to be public while I'm working not just w