We Don't Know?

The topic at CEWT #7 last weekend was Dirty Testing Secrets. I decided to present something reasonably provocative as a conversation starter. I think it worked. The essay below is a pretty version of the notes I prepared in advance.

--00--

Quality Assurance. QA. It's getting less common, but it's still not unusual for people in software to talk about getting something into QA or to asking us to QA their stuff.

I've worked hard over the years at our place to spread the word that I don't think of my team in that way. I do an induction for all new employees and explain how testing is a creative and intellectual activity, not a checkbox ticking drudge.

Sadly, I still encounter career testers who think that their role is to confirm that requirements are met and no more. But my sense is that that's an open secret rather than a dirty one. This isn't a dirty secret either, although it might be a surprise to some:

That's not to say that we are gatekeepers or owners or creators of quality and we certainly can't test the quality in. But, for me, we're in the quality business because we're in a team that builds things for people to use and it's part of our role to help our stakeholders gauge the level of quality of those things.

Given that, I think it's reasonable for stakeholders to expect that we have some kind of handle on what quality is. I looked in the literature ... and also Twitter:

Quality is value to some person. (Weinberg)
Quality is conformance to requirements. (Crosby)
The quality of software product is not in how many bugs are found and fixed before release. It is in how the team responds to bugs found in production. (Sussman)

While the first two are well-known, the latter is less so, although serviceability is amongst the factors that Garvin lists in Competing on the Eight Dimensions of Quality.

I asked the CEWT participants for their definitions of quality too. Here's a selection, and the rest can be found in In One Sentence, Define Quality, Bug, Testing:

How well someone perceives something works and meets a set of requirements.
External quality is a positive characteristic of software encompassing robustness, correctness, and lack of bugs.
An outcome that satisfies all stakeholders + customers.

So what is quality, then? Let's be honest, we don't know.

But our stakeholders are intelligent people in general, I'd say. They'll probably cut us a bit of slack here, recognising that context is crucial and that quality is a relationship between a product, a person, a time, and a task.

But what about bugs? Many of our colleagues see our bug reports, those by-products of our testing work that help them to understand the quality of their thing. Surely if we're writing them we must understand what bugs are. Mustn't we? Again, there are definitions to be found. Here's three:

Anything about the product that threatens its value. (Rapid Software Testing 3.0)
Something that bugs someone. (James Bach)
Anything that causes an unnecessary or unreasonable reduction of the quality of a software product. (BBST Bug Advocacy)

Perhaps unlike the varied definitions of quality, these three exist in a reasonably confined space, one where something about a product matters or might matter to someone for some reason. Taking the CEWT participants' definitions as well, that space broadens out:

The difference between something as desired and something as perceived that's an unwanted incongruity.
A bug is a piece of unintended behaviour in software that negatively affects a user - or will do so, when the software is released.
A perceived failure to meet an expectation.

So what is a bug? We don't know.

But I think our colleagues would recognise that, again, context is in play. They well know that product managers can deem something "not P1" or "not a bug" as easily as snapping their fingers, particularly as the release date gets closer. (Even if some testers I've known find this hard to accept.)

So they'll again be lenient and not push us too hard here. Bugs are a relationship between a product, a person, and a task, and a time.

However, even if we can't agree on what a problem is, or how good something is, our colleagues will likely be less forgiving when we can't explain what we do all day, what testing is.

There's no shortage of thought on this topic amongst our peers and CEWTees. These are quoted from What is Software Testing? and, as before, In One Sentence, Define Quality, Bug, Testing:

Testing is the process of executing a program with the intent of finding errors. (Meyers)
Testing is done to find information. Critical decisions about the project or the product are made on the basis of that information. (Kaner, Bach, Pettichord)
... interact with the software or system, observe its actual behavior, and compare that to your expectations. (Hendrickson)
Assessing the integrity of specific functionality using as many perspectives as any any potential user that might ever utilise it.
Uncovering unknowns, experimentation and problem solving.
A verb! The activity of assessing an object/person (thing) to determine the quality of one or more of its attributes.

Hmm. So what is testing? We don't know.

Testing, like quality and bugs is contextual. It's a relationship between a product, a person, and a task, and a time.

I've said "we don't know" a lot here. But whether that matters is arguable. The fact that I'm talking about it certainly reflects my bias towards understanding the semantics of the area I am working in. I find that the theory helps to guide my practice, but others are able to get on and do testing work without ever considering that there might be subtleties beyond "breaking the product".

For me, testing is done in a constant state of not knowing. Testing is about shining light into the dark, trying to make the best sense we can of the situation we find ourselves in. We don't know whether what we did is right, we don't know whether what we'll do next will help, we don't know whether the data we gathered is usable, or the conclusions we drew from it acceptable, nor whether the next thing we do will invalidate everything we have done so far.

In order to be a great tester you have to embrace that not knowing. You have to be able to work within uncertainty, without being confident that anything will stand still, taking into account that your lack of knowledge of something might be the key issue. Here's another dirty testing secret for you:

To summarise, then: we don't know what it is we're looking for, we can't tell what we've found, we don't know how we do it and we can't have confidence in it in any case.

I might say that we don't know what we're doing. But, ironically, if there's one thing we do know, it's that most people would rather not hear that. So let's keep it between ourselves, eh?

Here's my slides:

Photo: Neil Younger

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...

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...

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...

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...

Why Test, Test What, Then How?

There was a time when testing was all about the mnemonics . Well, we had no AI back then so thinking about our human craft and how to share what we had learned using our human intelligence with other engaged humans for later recall in their human heads seemed important. But this post isn't about dumping on AI. It isn't about mnemonics either even if WTTWTH does look like something that'd fit well into that ancient world. No, this post is just a snappier version of what I said to my team this week when I was walking through some testing I'd done the day before. It was concerned with a change to a particular turn in the dialog system we're building where multiple variables are in play, some populated by an external call to an LLM service. I wanted to make the point that the bulk of the testing work was done in the research I did and the spreadsheet I made, not in the interaction with our product. That spreadsheet was the result of me looking in our service's cod...

Open Your Mind

Jerome Groopman, in How Doctors Think , reviews ways in which doctors can make poor choices, identifies potential causes, and suggests some practices, for both doctor and patient, that can help to prevent them. I find this interesting for a couple of reasons: first, I work in the health space, although not in a therapeutic area and, second, I like to reflect on my own thought processes. I'll take three broad themes from Groopman's analysis: the business of healthcare and how that impacts a physician's ability to practice; the doctor-patient relationship and how that impacts the experience of both sides; and the cognitive failings that impact a correct and timely diagnosis for any given patient. Naturally, these overlap. The book is written from the perspective of the notoriously commercialised American medical system and is around 20 years old, so doubtless some of the details are different outside of the US and have changed since pu...

Better Isolate Than Never

How do you test a product with distributed logic and non-deterministic components? Well, it depends on the product and when the question is asked. This post is one answer, for now. A service I work on exposes an API for internal and external clients and calls multiple other services. It orchestrates a reasonably complex journey for a user, with their inputs and the responses of the services determining each step. Our customers can configure the service to provide a variant of the standard journey for their users. This gives them choices on the available steps, the order of the steps, and, importantly, some of the logic for taking particular steps. This configuration lives in a different repository to the service, not owned by us, and it can be changed and deployed independently from the service. As you can imagine, we test our service in multiple ways at different granularities using the usual tooling, including unit tests fo...

Hiccupps

Search This Blog