Skip to main content

How to Test Anything


This post is a prettied-up version of the notes I made in advance of my talk, How To Test Anything, at the OnlineTestConf 2020 this week. Here's the abstract:

Sometimes you’re asked to start testing in a context that is not ideal: you’ve only just joined the project, the test environment is broken, the product is migrating to a new stack, the developer has left, no-one seems quite sure what’s being done or why, and there is not much time. 

Knowing where to begin and what to focus on can be difficult and so in this talk I’ll describe how I try to meet that challenge.

I’ll share a definition of testing which helps me to navigate uncertainty across contexts and decide on a starting point. I’ll catalogue tools that I use regularly such as conversation, modelling, and drawing; the rule of three, heuristics, and background knowledge; mission-setting, hypothesis generation, and comparison. I’ll show how they’ve helped me in my testing, and how I iterate over different approaches regularly to focus my testing.

The takeaways from this talk will be a distillation of hard-won, hands-on experience that has given me
    • an expansive, iterative view of testing
    • a comprehensive catalogue of testing tools
    • the confidence to start testing anything from anywhere
--00--

How to test anything, then. The title felt gooooood when I proposed it after being invited to speak at the conference, but not so much when I came to write the talk! 


I'm very much not an egotist and the message I want to convey here is not that you should test in the patented, certified, Thomas Way. Rather, I think that there are useful approaches to testing independent of the application and the context, and I want to share the ones that I use and how I use them.

Let's start with a thought experiment.


You are watching a robot and me — a tester —  interacting with the same system. Our actions are, to the extent that you can tell, identical and the system is in the same state at each point in the sequence of actions for both of us. The machine and me performed the same actions on the same system with the same visible outcomes.

If I told you I was testing, would you feel comfortable saying that the robot was testing too? I’d have a hard time saying that it was. Harry Collins and Martin Kusch, in The Shape of Actions, reckon that:

Automation of some task becomes tractable at the point where we become indifferent to the details of it.

I'm not bashing automation — I’m a regular user of automation as a tool in testing — but whatever complexity you put into your robot, my instinct is that it's not going to be as flexible as a human could be when encountering a given situation, particularly an unforeseen one.  Automation naturally can’t consider all the details, filtering out only the ones that seem interesting given knowledge of the context in the way that a human can.

For me, testing requires there to be intent, deliberate actions, agency, and responsiveness to observation on the part of the tester. I also have a strong idea of what is required for something to be tested.


In this post, I’ll describe what testing is for me, I’ll list some of the testing tools that I think are useful across contexts, and I'll give a simple heuristic for starting testing when you're stuck.


So what is testing? Arborosa has collected many definitions dating back to the 1950s and I spent some time a couple of years ago looking over them and reflecting on how I like to work, before coming up with a definition that works for me:

Testing is the pursuit of relevant incongruity

Boom! It’s a mouthful, but I can unpack it.

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. 

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.

Which is great but, so what? Well, I can use it as a yardstick to gauge my activity against: I might want to be testing but realise I’m doing something else; I might be happy to do choose to do stuff that needs doing but isn’t testing.

Testing doesn't proceed in a linear fashion for me, either. I will typically choose to do something, get data from it, review that data, and then decide what to do next in a cycle.


To help me to test, I use tools. I've listed some of them here:


And what is a tool? For me it's simply a thing used to help perform a job and I've thought a lot about tools. (Take Your Pick: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.)

I have a toolbox that I carry with me, and I've taken care to become familiar with the tools so that I can reach for a tool that looks appropriate when I need it. My shed is organised the same way:


I like also to have a cache of stuff that isn't tools I'm familiar with and skilled at using, but which might come in handy, like this box of bits I've emptied out onto my bench. Sometimes the shape of the problem in front of you doesn't fit the shape of any of your tools, but there may be something in the box that can be offered up to it.


Perhaps I've used Selenium and have a grasp of its workings, its pros, and its cons. That's a tool and it's on my shelf. Let's say I've seen a webinar about Cypress and talked to a couple of team members who have experimented with it. That's in my box. If I see a problem that is similar to one I might use Selenium for, but isn't quite the right shape, I might reach for Cypress.

It's also important to practice with your tools. Learn when they apply well and when they don't. This tunes your intuition about when they'll be helpful or when they're actively working against your need. It also helps you to keep up to date and skilled with them. 

Here's a few of the tools I use all the time:
The best testers will be layering their activities. They’ll have a mission in mind but will be consciously trying to approach it in a way that gives them the chance to uncover other things. For example, they might be able to think of three ways to check some functionality and they’ll choose the one that exposes them to a bit of the product they haven’t seen much of, or has recently changed; maybe they’ll see a usability issue, or a performance problem that way.

The skilled tester might leave environments around when they’re finished with them so that some other later testing can be done in a dirty environment not in something that has been set up just for the test. Sometimes just coming back to a system that has been running by itself for a few days can show a problem.

I urge you to do this kind of conscious, intentful testing! Of course, a prerequisite for that  is starting and sometimes it's not easy.


Yes, it can be challenging because you don't want to make a mistake, to look foolish in front of new team mates, or set the project off down the wrong path. But I have a helpful heuristic:


You don’t necessarily need to wait for the requirements, or stability, or even a build of the application under test to start testing. Begin where you are!

Some factors that can help you to understand where you are:
  • constraints: budget, resources, time, ...
  • context: what is this product for, who is it for, what do they want to do, ...
  • value: who are your stakeholders, what are they looking for from you, ...
Choosing what to do next to deliver value to the project is setting your mission and I like to frame my missions using this slight variant of Elisabeth Hendrickson's charter template:


On a recent project I joined, I thought that the biggest challenge to customer and business value was (the way I saw it) disagreement amongst three stakeholders. In this case, I wrote a 2-page product description that crystallised what I thought we were building and importantly what I thought we were not building. When this was put in front of the team, and the stakeholders, we were able to have a conversation that squeezed out the differences.

You might reasonably ask whether I was testing. I think that in the main I was, yes. I was pursuing relevant incongruity.

I said three key things were needed for testing but in fact there's a fourth: something to test. I realised while I was writing the talk that I've encapsulated pretty much everything I've said so far in a page on my team's wiki. I pair with someone from my team every week. As a manager, ad hoc pairing is tricky for me to set up, but a recurring calendar appointment works. So I came up with some guidelines to help others help me to be involved:


I like to set the mission so that we are intentional and I like to reflect so that we have a chance to learn and change, but the key thing here is that I'm happy to start anywhere on anything completely from cold. I'm confident that I can bring something to the party wherever, whenever, and whatever that party is.  

So that's how I test anything: I have an idea what testing means for me, I find and practice with tools that help me to achieve it, and I'm not afraid to start from where I am and iterate.

Here's the video and full slides:


Comments

  1. Thank you James for your blog post, it was insightful. I am also to have found Elisabeth Hendrickson's charter template through your blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Trevor. I hope you find the template as useful as I have over the years.

      Delete

Post a Comment

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

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 —

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

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

Risk-Based Testing Averse

  Joep Schuurkes started a thread on Twitter last week. What are the alternatives to risk-based testing? I listed a few activities that I thought we might agree were testing but not explicitly driven by a risk evaluation (with a light edit to take later discussion into account): Directed. Someone asks for something to be explored. Unthinking. Run the same scripted test cases we always do, regardless of the context. Sympathetic. Looking at something to understand it, before thinking about risks explicitly. In the thread , Stu Crook challenged these, suggesting that there must be some concern behind the activities. To Stu, the writing's on the wall for risk-based testing as a term because ... Everything is risk based, the question is, what risks are you going to optimise for? And I see this perspective but it reminds me that, as so often, there is a granularity tax in c

Agile Testing Questioned

Zenzi Ali has been running a book club on the Association for Software Testing Slack and over the last few weeks we've read Agile Testing Condensed by Janet Gregory and Lisa Crispin. Each chapter was taken as a jumping off point for one or two discussion points and I really enjoyed the opportunity to think about the questions Zenzi posed and sometimes pop a question or two back into the conversation as well. This post reproduces the questions and my answers, lightly edited for formatting. --00-- Ten principles of agile testing are given in the book. Do you think there is a foundational principle that the others must be built upon? In your experience, do you find that some of these principles are less or more important than others?  The text says they are for a team wanting to deliver the highest-quality product they can. If we can regard a motivation as a foundational principle, perhaps that could be it: each of the ten pr

The Great Post Office Scandal

  The Great Post Office Scandal by Nick Wallis is a depressing, dispiriting, and disheartening read. For anyone that cares about fairness and ethics in the relationship that business and technology has with individuals and wider society, at least. As a software tester working in the healthcare sector who has signed up to the ACM code of ethics through my membership of the Association for Software Testing I put myself firmly in that camp. Wallis does extraordinarily well to weave a compelling and readable narrative out of a years-long story with a large and constantly-changing cast and depth across subjects ranging from the intensely personal to extremely technical, and through procedure, jurisprudence, politics, and corporate governance. I won't try to summarise that story here (although Wikipedia takes a couple of stabs at it ) but I'll pull out a handful of threads that I think testers might be interested in: The unbelievable naivety which lead to Horizon (the system at th

Testing and Semantics

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 this series so far we've looked at words and syntax. In both cases we've found that natural language is an imprecise medium for communication. We might know the same words and grammar as others ... but they will have their own idea about what they mean ... and even where we agree there is ambguity ... and all of us, the world, and the language are evolving ... all the time. Today we'll add semantics which, in a pleasing twist, is itself ambiguo

Leaps and Boundary Objects

Brian Marick  recently launched a new podcast, Oddly Influenced . I said this about it on Twitter: Boundary Objects, the first episode of @marick's podcast, is thought-provoking and densely-packed with some lovely turns of phrase. I played it twice in a row. Very roughly, boundary objects are things or concepts that help different interest groups to collaborate by being ambiguous enough to be meaningful and motivational to all parties. Wikipedia  elaborates, somewhat formally:  [boundary objects are] both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites ... The creation and management of boundary objects is key in developing and maintaining coherence across intersecting social worlds. The podcast talks about boundary objects in general and then applies the idea to software development specifically, casting acceptance test

Personal Development

The other day I got tagged on a Twitter conversation between a couple of my colleagues, Ben Dowen and Dan Ashby , which ended with Ben citing me as an example: But there is a trap, in that a Dev who Tests, or Tester who codes both risk becoming Test Automators ... The counter argument is Testers who code can do as @qahiccupps does, and use and build tools to explore. A jumble of thoughts tumbled out as I read it and here they are, in no particular order. It is flattering to be mentioned but I'm far from the only person doing this. Maaret Pyhäjärvi   and Rob Sabourin are vocal about the value it can bring and go out of their way to tell and teach others how to get it. Ben is right when he says I use coding as a tool, and as a tool factory. It's a means to an end. Coding itself doesn't give me a lot of pleasure. Having created a useful thing gives me an enormous amount of pleasure. I am not a great developer. But then I rarely need to be.   Yes, I have made bug fixes that