Navigate, Survey, and Explore

I've been working on my talk for the Testing, Diversity, AI conference run by the Software Testing interest group of the British Computer Society.

In it, I'm thinking about the tooling I built to help me explore a chatbot API. It exploits random choice to walk through the extremely large space of possible chats in a medical symptom checking application.

As I reflected on the combination of tools and testing I found it convenient to label three activities that involve both.

Navigate

Navigation is about finding a path to an endpoint. While navigating I am very interested to notice assumptions I'm making, workarounds that are required, and any questions that come to mind, but my main focus is on reaching the goal.

In the first instance, on this project, I needed a basic framework that would enable my code to start a chat, walk through all of the interactions with the service, and stop. As I was writing code to create my initial implementation I sacrificed generality in favour of the end-to-end path. For example, the first version presented as the same user every time.

I found myself asking questions like What would happen if I ... ? How can I ... ? Why is this ...? For example: why are these two schemas similar but different (and so I need two routines to parse them)? Unless I needed to resolve them to proceed, I just parked those questions for later.

Survey

Surveying looks at the known paths and their environments with lenses that increase knowledge about them. While surveying I'm trying to find information that supports and extends what I've learned so far or points to somewhere that might merit exploration.

On this project, I added assertions on API payloads matching schemas, fields that should be in some relationship to one another, and bad requests getting error responses. I also asserted things that I thought would hold generally but wasn't sure in the hope that, across enough runs I would find places that the assertion was violated.

When an assertion fails I get to wonder whether my expectation is wrong, whether my coding is wrong, or whether the service is wrong.

Because I was using randomness to make choices, I sometimes couldn't assert very specifically. In this case, the assertions might be that values should be within a specific range or set, as in property-based testing.

Explore

Exploration seeks unknowns in the areas off any paths. While exploring, I will typically start with open questions and move in directions that look promising in the moment. I need to be comfortable backtracking, finding alternative routes, and dealing with ambiguity. My main focus is on answering the question, and I'll use tools to do that where I think it makes sense.

When you explore you don’t know if you’ll find anything, and if you find something you won’t know whether it’s relevant, and if it’s relevant you won’t know whether it’s important.

On this project I'd ask a question like are there dialog states where aborting the chat will be problematic? I'd then look for a way to hack or configure the code to abort regularly during chats, and log what happened when it tried. I could then run thousands of chats, generate logs, and look for patterns of behaviour, gaps in the places that were aborted from, and so on using a spreadsheet or tools I created specifically for that.

Thoughts

I think that in navigation I'm biasing towards tooling and finding ideas that I can take into testing. When exploring I'm starting with a test idea and looking for tools that can help me to investigate it. Often the tools are code (Python and Bash on this project).

Surveying falls somewhere between the other two, but the boundaries between all three are pretty fuzzy. Where the distinction helps is to remind me of my intent and keep me on mission. When I want to build a thing — to navigate — then I probably won't follow up every interesting-looking observation. I'll save them until I explore, unless the potential value looks high in which case I can intentionally suspend one mission and start another.

Also, although I've listed them in a particular order here, I'm not saying that they need to occur in that order. You might explore to find places to navigate between, surveying can be the first steps in exploring, attempts to navigate can help you to understand what makes sense to survey.

I've seen cartographical analogies for exploration before but I don't recall seeing this kind of breakdown for the relationship between tooling and testing. I'd be interested to know of precedents or similar ideas.

Comments

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

Not Strictly for the Birds

One of my chores takes me outside early in the morning and, if I time it right, I get to hear a charming chorus of birdsong from the trees in the gardens down our road, a relaxing layered soundscape of tuneful calls, chatter, and chirrupping. Interestingly, although I can tell from the number and variety of trills that there must be a large number of birds around, they are tricky to spot. I have found that by staring loosely at something, such as the silhouette of a tree's crown against the slowly brightening sky, I see more birds out of the corner of my eye than if I scan to look for them. The reason seems to be that my peripheral vision picks up movement against the wider background that direct inspection can miss. An optometrist I am not, but I do find myself staring at data a great deal, seeking relationships, patterns, or gaps. I idly wondered whether, if I filled my visual field with data, I might be able to exploit my peripheral vision in that quest. I have a wide monito

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

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

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

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

The Best Laid Test Plans

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-- "What's the best format for a test plan?" I'll side-step the conversation about what a test plan is and just say that the format you should use is one that works for you, your coll

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

Hiccupps

Search This Blog