Why Test, Test What, Then How?

There was a time when testing was all about the mnemonics. Well, we had no AI back then so thinking about our human craft and how to share what we had learned using our human intelligence with other engaged humans for later recall in their human heads seemed important.

But this post isn't about dumping on AI. It isn't about mnemonics either even if WTTWTH does look like something that'd fit well into that ancient world.

No, this post is just a snappier version of what I said to my team this week when I was walking through some testing I'd done the day before. It was concerned with a change to a particular turn in the dialog system we're building where multiple variables are in play, some populated by an external call to an LLM service.

I wanted to make the point that the bulk of the testing work was done in the research I did and the spreadsheet I made, not in the interaction with our product.

That spreadsheet was the result of me looking in our service's codebase, exercising our product a little via the UI, background knowledge of another relevant downstream service, and talking to a couple of developers:

As the colouring shows, two of the variables are the focus, v1 takes three values and v5 takes four, giving 12 combinations of interest. The other variables will not make a difference, but in one particular case I wanted to confirm that specifically so I varied v6 a little too.

I exported the spreadsheet to a CSV file and asked Cursor to make mock payloads from the external service for each of the rows, naming the files for the Id column. (In the before times, the mnemonic times, I would have written a script for that, but ...)

With the test data, I mocked the external service using Wiremock and set up a nice tight controlled loop where I could exhaustively exercise the scenarios that matter, using our product's UI as a user would, but totally certain about the data being passed.

The loop went like this, for each row of the spreadsheet:

configure the mock data for this row
refresh the mock server
enter the dialog turn in one way
observe the outcome
enter the same dialog turn a different way
observe the outcome again
record findings in the spreadsheet

I did this before and after our change, to generate a couple of tables of 28 rows each that I could easily compare to understand the behavioural difference that we'd implemented. During the testing I was able to explore around the behaviours too, when I felt the need, but I didn't detect any unwanted side-effects of the work.

I also got Cursor to make a second set of mocks, this time for all possible permutations, not just the ones I thought would be of interest (there were 3000 of them and, amusingly, it chose to write a script to generate them, which I archived for later re-use.) I configured the mock server to choose from these randomly each time it was called and ran my dialog walker, configured to hit this particular dialog turn with different user inputs, against our service to look for potentially interesting cases.

--00--

So, what did I do here?

First, I thought about why I was testing, and it wasn't to confirm a couple of happy paths, it was to explore the behaviour on relevant data in a complex piece of distributed logic that needs to be correct for the integrity of our product. (For reasons, it's hard to test this exhaustively in code right now, although that's something we're working on.)

Next I looked into what I should test to satisfy that need. I identified what looked like the key variables and decided that there were sufficiently few cases that I would look at them all by hand. But, because the area is complex, I also decided to use tooling to give me a chance of spotting edge cases that I hadn't considered.

Finally, I exercised the product in a couple of different ways, with a couple of different evaluation processes in mind. The mocks help me to control the data coming back from the external service which is important because it's not quite deterministic and the behaviours in our product I was exploring are subtle. I wanted to be "in" the product for the key scenarios to see how it looked for users and make it possible to spot side-issues, but I was prepared to go "big data" for the wider-scope test and just run the tooling and search the results for outliers.

This isn't to say that all testing needs to be planned up the wazoo but it is to say that testing should be intentional. The actions follow from that and any other contraints such as time, resources, perceived risk and so on. Remaining exploratory and being prepared to pivot give flexibility.

--00--

Why Test, Test What, Then How? That's WTTWTH. Use it to find those mnemonic WTF!?s.

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 answ...

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...

My Adidas

If you've met me anywhere outside of a wedding or funeral, a snowy day, or a muddy field in the last 20 years you'll have seen me in Adidas Superstar trainers. But why? This post is for April Cools' Club . --00-- I'm the butt of many jokes in our house, but not having a good memory features prominently amongst them. See also being bald ("do you need a hat, Dad?"), wearing jeans that have elastane in them (they're very comfy but "oh look, he's got the jeggings on again!"), and finding joy in contorted puns ("no-one's laughing except you, you know that, right?") Which is why it's interesting that I have a very strong, if admittedly not complete, memory of the first time I heard Run DMC. Raising Hell , their third album, was released in the UK in May 1986 and I bought it pretty much immediately after hearing it on the evening show on Radio 1, probably presented by Janice Long, ...

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...

Going Underground

The map is not the territory. You've heard this before and I've quoted it before . The longer quote (due to Alfred Korzybski) from which the snappy soundbite originated adds some valuable context: A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness. I was thinking about that this week as I came to a product new to me but quite mature with a very rich set of configuration options. When I say rich , I mean — without casting any shade, because I have been there and understand — it is set in multiple locations, has extensive potential effects, and is often difficult to understand. For my current project I consider it crucial to get a non-shallow view of how this works and so I began to explore. While there is some limited documentation it is, as so often, not up to date so mostly I worked in the codebases. Yes, plural, because this product spans multiple r...

How do I Test AI?

Recently a few people have asked me how I test AI. I'm happy to share my experiences, but I frame the question more broadly, perhaps something like this: what kinds of things do I consider when testing systems with artificial intelligence components . I freestyled liberally the first time I answered but when the question came up again I thought I'd write a few bullets to help me remember key things. This post is the latest iteration of that list. Caveats: I'm not an expert; what you see below is a reminder of things to pick up on during conversations so it's quite minimal; it's also messy; it's absolutely not a guide or a set of best practices; each point should be applied in context; the categories are very rough; it's certainly not complete. Also note that I work with teams who really know what they're doing on the domain, tech, and medical safety fronts and some of the things listed here are things they'd typically do some or all of. Testing ...

On Herding Cats

Last night I was at the Cambridge Tester meetup for a workshop on leadership. It was a two-parter with Drew Pontikis facilitating conversation about workplace scenarios followed by an AMA with a group of experienced managers. I can't come to work this week, my cat died. Drew opened by asking us what our first thoughts would be as managers on seeing that sentence. Naturally, sadness and sympathy, followed by a week ? for a cat ? and I only got a day for my gran! Then practicalities such as maybe there's company policy that covers that , and then the acknowledgement that it's contextual: perhaps this was a long-time emotional support animal . Having established that management decisions are a mixture of emotion, logic, and contingency Drew noted that most of us don't get training in management or leadership then split us into small groups and confronted us with three situations to talk through: Setting personal development goals for others. Dropping a clange...

Bottom-up or Top-down?

The theme at LLEWT this year was Rules and constraints to ensure better quality. My experience report concerned a team I'd been on for several years which developed (bottom-up) a set of working practices that we called team agreements. The agreements survived "natural" variation such as people leaving and joining and even some structural reorganisation which preserved most of the team members but changed the team's responsibilities or merged in a few people from a disbanded team. The agreements did not, however, persist through a significant round of (top-down) redundancies where the team was merged with two others. I'm interested in thinking about the ways in which constraints on how people work affect the work and whether there are patterns that could help us to apply the right kinds of constraints at times they are likely to be useful. I'm going to use this post to dump my thoughts. My starting po...

Not a Happy Place

A few months ago I stopped having therapy because I felt I had stabilised myself enough to navigate life without it. For the time being, anyway. I'm sure the counselling helped me but I couldn't tell you how and I've chosen not to look deeply into it. For someone who is usually pretty analytical this is perhaps an interesting decision but I knew that I didn't want to be second-guessing my counsellor, Sue, or mentally cross-referencing stuff that I'd researched while we were talking. And talk was what we mostly did, with Sue suggesting hardly any specific tools for me to try. One that she did recommend was finding a happy place to visualise, somewhere that I could be out of the moment for a moment to calm disruptive thoughts. (Something like this .) Surprisingly, I found that I couldn't conjure anywhere up inside my head. That's when I realised that I've always had difficulty seeing with my mind's eye but never called it out. If I try to imagine ev...

The Best Testing I Could

Maaret Pyhäjärvi posted the quote above on LinkedIn a few weeks ago. It speaks strongly to me so I asked Maaret if she'd written more (because she's written a lot ) on this specific point. She hasn't, and the sentence keeps coming back into my head and I'd like to understand why, so I thought I'd try to write down what I take from it. I think it's easy to skim read as some kind of definition of exploratory testing but that would be a mistake in my eyes. Testing by Exploring summarises how I felt last time I went into the definition in any depth and, for me, Maaret's quote is concerned with the why but says nothing of the what or how . But let's say we have a shared definition of exploratory testing, would I make this statement this baldly generally? No, I probably would not. Why? First, it's written in very personal terms (" my time", "the best testing I could") and, second, as a contex...

Hiccupps

Search This Blog