Skip to main content

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 — Ilari Henrik Aegerter

since part of software is a complex system: To reveal unknown unknowns — Ilari Henrik Aegerter

but unfortunately also: as a masochistic self-medication practice — Ilari Henrik Aegerter

my definition: “Testing is the art of finding out what software can do, where it fails to do what it claims, and what else the product does that might be surprising” — Ilari Henrik Aegerter

We test software because between what business wants and what engineers deliver, a lot of information gets lost/filtered/unexplored. And it is important to find that information and bring it on the table for everybody to know what to do next —  Lalit Bhamare

I took this one from a list of Software Testing Myths: "Testing is a measure of quality. The number of defects you find indicates the quality of the product." — Dusty Juhl

Testing is important because of risks we know about and risks we uncover during the activity. — Rachel Kibler

Testing is funtastic. — Aleksandar Simic

Living for testing, testing for living. — Aleksandar Simic

It depends on what I'm testing at the moment.  Lately I test to ensure we are releasing the product/feature that our company wanted to release, and that users will enjoy. — Joel Montvelisky

For me testing has always been a service,  as such the most important thing is to fulfill the needs we were brought to provide.  — Joel Montvelisky

If I needed to come up with a general umbrella reason for my testing… it would need to be around reducing the risk of disappointing / harming the people who will eventually work with our product  — Joel Montvelisky

It costs less than not testing. (in terms of reputation, hotfixes, etc) — Amit Wertheimer

It provides some ease-of-mind to the decision takers, and sleeping well is valuable. — Amit Wertheimer

In both cases, it's not always true, and if so - we should not test. If there's a way to gain enough confidence to sleep well, or have a way to avoid problems without testing, we should definitely explore it. — Amit Wertheimer

I work in testing because, in college, while I did well in my programing classes I wasn't the top of my class, whereas I was the top of my software testing classes. Since, virtually no-one else even had testing classes I could be a rock star there. — Curtis Pettit

I stay in testing because, its more fun, I'm still better at it, and I can avoid most of the non-programming problems that devs have, fighting with builds, monitoring tools, ect. While still writing as much code as I like. — Curtis Pettit

Because we prefer most of the feedback on our software to be deliberate feedback. Deliberate as in: influence and/or control over the what/when/how/... allows it to be more timely, more information-rich, more actionable. — Joep Schuurkes

We test software, to help make design decisions. — The Full Snack Tester (Ben Dowen)

We test software, to gain evidence through observation that help use make judgements about software quality. — The Full Snack Tester (Ben Dowen)

We test software, so we can identify friction and misbehaviours before our users. — The Full Snack Tester (Ben Dowen)

I test for compliance to organizational and regulatory expectations — Perze Ababa

tests help me follow and document where the data flows and what the system does to each data whenever there’s a handoff — Perze Ababa

To be less embarrassed after release. — Lena (Pejgan) Wiberg

To reduce the risk for at least some lawsuits. — Lena (Pejgan) Wiberg

To be able to be able to sleep better at night — Lena (Pejgan) Wiberg

Because it’s really fun, like detective work — Lena (Pejgan) Wiberg

We test, to learn the difference, if any, from how we expect software to behave and how it actually behaves in operation. — The Full Snack Tester (Ben Dowen)

We test software, to investigate potential risks and understand if our mitigation and avoidance of those risks are working. — The Full Snack Tester (Ben Dowen)

I test to understand the product as it exists today. — Chris Kenst

The necessity of a project to test software? To find it's problems. Finding no problems by a certain pattern is also a valid result, just more unlikely to happen.  — ☮️🕊️☯️📢Sebastian, Life Tester [Sebastian linked to a Michael Bolton thread on the topic]

I test mainly to have confidence for refactoring and extension. — Benjamin Bischoff

We test software because we want to learn as much as we can about it and we are specifically keen to find out if there are any potential problems associated with it. — David Högberg

To praraphrase @NicolaLindgren: We test software to be able to affect the perception of the product’s quality. — David Högberg

We test only because the risk of not testing is deemed to high a price to pay — Stu C

I test my code to gain confidence that what it does in reality matches my expectations. — Samuel Nitsche

I do it often as automation to have a signal for unexpected change in the future. — Samuel Nitsche

I do it to document the intentions I had when writing the software. — Samuel Nitsche

To learn something that we want to know — jonhussey

We test to reduce uncertaincy — Declan O'Riordan

We test software to find out if there are differences between the product we’ve got, the product we think we have, and the product we want. — Michael Bolton

Whenever clever people try to do clever things, there's an element of risk. Someone might not understand exactly what the customer and the business want—and the customers or the business might not even know for sure. — Michael Bolton

Programmers might commit errors in implementing the code; smart people make mistakes too. — Michael Bolton

Finding those problems is important when things are serious. When health, life, safety, money, opportunity, reputation — individual and social values — could be at risk. — Michael Bolton [Michael elaborated further in his answer]

To discover the weird and wonderful quirks of the software in question! — Martin Pihl

Testing is a recognition of the fact that 'to err is human' ... The timing of, and degree to which we test, is determined by the potential risk of the change, combined with the impact of what might happen if we don't test. — Parshotam Toora

Entropy. There are an infinite number of ways in which software, that is part of a complex system, can fail. There are only a few ways in which it can succeed. Testing is one approach to find out how it will/can/may fail so you can address that issue approprioately. — Dennis de Booij

We test everything, don’t we? New electronics, relationships, software, habits.. Sort of finding something that you put a value or you will. 😄 — Yasemin Bostancı

We test software to gain confidence on what we are actually doing is what we expected to do as a team. — Trisha Chetani

We test the software because we as a company do not want our customers to find the same issue. — Trisha Chetani

We test software because the company brand name and image are not at stake. We want to convey that our software application requires lower maintenance cost and hence results in more accurate, consistent, and reliable software. — Trisha Chetani

We test software because users can do what they want to do. — Trisha Chetani

We test software because the company can reduce the cost which comes from when people find a lot of issues in production (could be any environment) and are not able to use the software in later stages of the development cycle. — Trisha Chetani

We test software because the company can gain in a way customer satisfaction by producing the quality release of each software version. — Trisha Chetani

We test the software because we enhance the software development process and make it easier for the company to add or remove new features by having confidence. — Trisha Chetani

One of those big questions: “why we develop software “. To serve humanity and us in a symbiotic relationship towards improvement as a race. (Too pophetic for a Sunday 😅). — Robin Gupta

To uncover product and project risk. — Ravi Malayappan

To empirically find out more information about the product. — Ravi Malayappan

In regulatory environments you simply have to do it because the government said so :)! — Ravi Malayappan

Because we want to know where we are with the product to help us make decisions about what to do next with the product. — Pavel Šaman

To increase the quality "hopefully" to reach 5 star product. — Anees Nasry

Emphasize the "SAFE" feeling of customer while using the product. — Anees Nasry

Expand my perspective of how people (Product Owners, Developrs, clients,...) think in different domains. — Anees Nasry

As it's one of the important life's hack (in my humble opinion) — Anees Nasry

Because those involved in software development are wonderful and human and therefore very naturally fallible. — Andrew Kelly

Not being perfect carries risk so we test to discover, investigate and manage that risk. — Andrew Kelly

If you feel pride in the product you want to make sure your end users get the best experience possible. — Georg Neumann

Because developers aren't good testers. :) — Maninder Singh
Image: https://flic.kr/p/4YeBmg

Comments

  1. No one quoted Bruce Eckel so I will, I think this classic captures the simple truth behind why we test anything. "If it's not tested, it's broken".

    ReplyDelete
  2. This article was curated as a part of the #51st Issue of Software Testing Notes Newsletter.
    https://softwaretestingnotes.substack.com/p/issue-51-software-testing-notes

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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

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