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 that you delineate roles and responsibilities within it.
As presented, the statement seems more absolutist than I am comfortable with. I tried to check my prejudices at the door by looking for situations in which it might be uttered without (excessive) controversy. Maybe these?
- to HR, to filter applicants for an oversubscribed testing position
- in a consultancy, to satisfy a
non-negotiable client demand
- on a project where the system under test only has a programmatic interface
Close behind my initial curiosity comes a sense of foreboding that this might be one of those conversations in which the potential value of a specialist tester is not appreciated.
For today, let's assume my scepticism is unwarranted and that you'll humour me for a few minutes by answering my questions because you are interested in having your assumptions challenged and open to the possibility that you might change your mind.
So, without wanting to get heavy about semantics, it was interesting that you phrased your statement with two negatives. To help me interpret it, I tried to sketch some possible scenarios. You can see them at the top.
- Some testers who can code are useful but no-one else is
- All testers who can code are useful but no-one else is
- Some testers who can code are useful along with others who are not testers
- All testers who can code are useful, along with others who are not testers
I wonder if any of those capture your thinking more precisely?
While we're on this track, your statements appear very binary. A person can either code or not? A person is either useful or not? Is there no room for nuance at all in your situation?
Could it be that you're thinking about coding and utility in specific and constrained ways? For example, could you imagine a scenario in which a tester had some knowledge of coding and brought value outside the places you'd traditionally expect?
What does useful mean to you? What does a useful tester mean to you? If coding is so important, what additional value do you get from a tester who can code over anyone else who can code? If there's nothing, why are you looking for a tester? If there's something, why couldn't a tester do that, and be supported by someone else who can code?
And coding is a broad church. Someone who's fluent in a specialist DSL based on Prolog for an AI application might be awful at C on an embedded micro-controller. Is it enough that the tester can hack together a temporary test rig out of Python and bash, or do you need someone who can architect and build a company-wide, end-to-end, full-stack, framework?
I feel like we could talk for hours. It's so refreshing to have this kind of conversation with an engaged stakeholder who cares to take the time to explore their position with the aim of getting a better understanding and outcome.
And that's one of the things a skilled tester can help to do ... without writing a single line of code.
Comments
Post a Comment