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 its maintainers and the consumers of its output. However, I decided to review the change precisely because I was unfamiliar with this part of our infrastructure.

When I say this was primarily a learning opportunity for me don't take it the wrong way. I found a nice way to test and I uncovered some interesting issues with the new implementation, but my motivation was to do something new and see what it could teach me. In the absence of other constraints I will often bias towards picking up tasks which give me that.

Schema Validation

We have a pipeline that generates a handful of large JSON files and had been asked to update the format to align with changes to the underlying source data. I had paired with the developer to understand the task before implementation and so had an idea that I would start my testing by dumping the same source content in both old and new formats and diffing them by eye to look for examples of expected changes, then attempting to reverse the new formatting with a simple Python script to check for unwanted changes.

That worked fine, so I turned my attention to validation. The pipeline asserts that the JSON output is valid against a schema and so naturally the schema had changed. I reviewed the edits and they looked like the kinds of changes I might expect ... if I understood the syntax of JSON schemas ... which I do not.

So I decided to go a little further and installed ajv, a tool for using JSON schemas to validate content, because it supports the version of the schema standard that we had used and because it has a command line interface that I can interact with. When I applied it to the new-format JSON files it warned that there was a problem with the schema, but I did not understand the warning and saw that it was flagged as a "strict mode" issue only anyway.

Keeping that in mind, I proceeded with my testing and found that it claimed the JSON was valid according to the schema. So I started to break the JSON in ways that I thought validation should pick up and found that it didn't. This looked interesting so I kept experimenting and cross-referencing with the JSON schema documentation until I discovered that part of the schema appeared to validate nothing and that it related to the strict mode warning in a way that now made some sense.

I could have reported a bug and finished at that point but I decided to try to fix the schema. Why? Because I already had a lot of context and I thought there was an opportunity to learn more. I made a handful of edits, pushed them back into the still-open PR and asked the developer who wrote the schema to check that I hadn't broken some assumption that he'd made.

Writing Definition Files

One of the products I work on is a platform that exposes services defined in reasonably complex files. It's a new product this year and so no-one has much experience of writing these files and, with understandable prioritisation, we haven't built tooling for creating them yet either. As the files are so fundamental for the platform I have taken every opportunity I can to write them which means I have picked up implementation tasks for demos, proofs of concept, and documentation.

Along the way I have built throwaway tools to help me to write and test the files and the exposed services, found issues in both the syntax and semantics of the files, and exploited the files as tools themselves to help me to test the platform.

There was no pressure to pick up these implementation tasks. I chose to do it because I thought there was advantage to me and the team if I did, and I pick up other implementation tasks on the same basis. I don't enjoy programming enough — and frankly I'm not good enough at it — to take on anything that makes large changes or requires deep language-level knowledge, but I will attempt bug fixes, or fiddle with the Jenkins pipeline, or sketch possible approaches in spikes.

So What?

So what has this got to do with Joep's axes? Well, nothing that challenges them significantly but I think that there are additional dimensions that Joep didn't represent that are also interesting, including:

immediate result vs invest in the future
fix the brokenness vs report the brokenness
build the thing vs test the thing

I initially wondered if any of these might be covered by Joep's third axis, "improve the system." In the article, a footnote refers to this LinkedIn post from Maaret Pyhäjärvi which expands the idea but suggests that it is talking about the context in which work is done, rather than the system under test. I pinged Joep on Mastodon and he confirmed that was the case.

His original post does touch briefly on a related topic, that of roles and activities:

This confusion of people, roles, and process steps means we rarely talk about what we do in a smart way. In a more specific, more granular way. What are the different activities that need doing? What skills and perspectives are needed for those activities? Who on our team can contribute?

It's a good point but I think there's another important aspect: why would any given person (or persons) do any particular task? Whose needs are being met, in what ways, to what ends?

I believe that being aware of and intentional about those questions is important and I keep them in mind as I make, fix, and, of course and mostly, test.
Image: Bing Image Creator

Comments

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

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

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

Beginning Sketchnoting

In September 2017 I attended Ian Johnson 's visual note-taking workshop at DDD East Anglia . For the rest of the day I made sketchnotes, including during Karo Stoltzenburg 's talk on exploratory testing for developers (sketch below), and since then I've been doing it on a regular basis. Karo recently asked whether I'd do a Team Eating (the Linguamatics brown bag lunch thing) on sketchnoting. I did, and this post captures some of what I said. Beginning sketchnoting, then. There's two sides to that: I still regard myself as a beginner at it, and today I'll give you some encouragement and some tips based on my experience, to begin sketchnoting for yourselves. I spend an enormous amount of time in situations where I find it helpful to take notes: testing, talking to colleagues about a problem, reading, 1-1 meetings, project meetings, workshops, conferences, and, and, and, and I could go on. I've long been interested in the approaches I've evol

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

ChatGPTesters

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-- "Why don’t we replace the testers with AI?" We have a good relationship so I feel safe telling you that my instinctive reaction, as a member of the Tester's Union, is to ask why we don&

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

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

Hiccupps

Search This Blog