For Fix Sake

The latest episode of the Vernon Richard Show, New QA Job? How We'd Decide Where To Start, answers this question from a listener, Shady:

When joining a new organisation, how do you decide which QA domino piece to tackle first for the rest to easily fall into place? For example, you might find flaky test automation, poor testability in user stories, no integration tests, limited test management tools, missing test data, and an ever growing regression suite. With so many improvement opportunities, how do you prioritise what to fix first?

As usual the conversation ranged freely and I've picked out some of the key points with a little commentary here:

It Depends: usually the right answer or, rather, a small part of the right answer. The rest should be what it depends on and how that affects your answer.

Investigate the Context First: exploring to understand the context is a reasonable default in a new job. You'll want to understand the key stakeholders, how much they agree, what their hobby horses are, where the political bear traps are, what the perceived problems are, who's invested in the status quo, who's invested in a solution, etc, etc, etc.

Address the Pain First: Starting here means that you go immediately to wherever the current pain is greatest. There are three basic scenarios: (1) You are told unambiguously what to investigate by someone with authority who matters, (2) your colleagues understand the situation well and direct you, (3) you see something bleedin' obvious without any need for further investigation. I'd consider all of them valid and a potential taxi to the right context.

The Testing Story: Sharing what you've done, what you've found, and what value you think that has with relevant people and getting their feedback is a good way to break your incorrect assumptions: people often have additional information to give, if provided with something to correct, or a space into which they can drop it.

How We Got Here: Jerry Weinberg's "things are the way they are because they got that way" was cited by Rich as a reason to find the "because". But there's another reading which says we should simply accept what's in front of us and deal with it. Both can be viable approaches but have potential downsides (appearing to blame-seek and not finding the real issue, respectively) so this one needs a judgement call, for which you will want context.

The Juice vs The Squeeze: What investment to make, with what costs, and when will it pay back? Some squeezes can pay off in instalments or make later squeezes possible. Sometimes an investment needs to be made first, to find the juiciest fruit and the right way to apply pressure. A series of light squeezes returning just a few drops each can get things started.

Credibility, Actions and Results: Vern and Rich talked about an ace Youtube plumber who diagnoses problems while showing his working. This is a great example because credibility comes from actions and results. The sacred cows they also mention in the podcast will require credibility to tackle, and you need to have done your context-seeking homework if you want to minimise beef. (And you usually do.)

Credibility, Visibility: It wasn't called out explicitly, but making sure people know about your contribution and outcomes - without being an egomaniac or a dick - is also a good idea. Are there forums where you can share your ideas, your work, your results and get passive credit for them?

Fresh Eyes: Rich and Vern say that you can channel the child in the The Emperor's New Clothes, exposing the collective illusion, the groupthink, the HIPPO culture. And you can but not without risk. While it can definitely build credibility with some, it might embarrass others so think carefully about how, to who, where, and when you point at that bare arse.

Bring Expertise: Be aware that others may not know your terms of art, or may understand something different by it. Describing a thing as well as naming it is a good way to bring people along, calling out existing examples of the behaviour you think is beneficial is better. Introducing a productive way to frame a problem is even better still. For example, the YT plumber moves from failure to fault: from observable effect to underlying problem. Giving people the shared concepts and model to be able to ask each other which they're looking at while investigating is a great cultural hack.

--00--

Vernon and Richard are experienced testers, coaches, and communicators so it's no surprise that everything they raised has some value. But while I was listening I was thinking of other avenues I might explore if answering the same question, so I'm dropping them here too:

In this scenario do you see the problems already, or do you still need to look for the problems?
... and if you need to look for problems, let's talk about exploration
... and how to choose where to start
Are the problems yours to raise or yours to tackle? Or both?
... and what difference would the answer to that question make to your approach?
Remember that you're a stakeholder too, so ...
.... what would help you, what matters to you?
Where do you see friction?
... and how can you reduce some of it?
... today?
What's the smallest thing you could change that would have a valuable impact?
... and can you do it right now?
Can you make changes quietly in the background?
... for example, by adding tests when you're looking at a developer's PR.
Remember that you have agency:
... make time to look for or at the things that you think are likely to be useful, important, and relevant
... regardless of what you have been told.
Why is this a list "QA dominoes"?
... where are the product issues and risks?
... you are looking at the product, aren't you?
The question wants a way to tackle one thing and have the rest "fall into place"
... if that's really the goal, then a good model of the system is required
... and any plan should be flagged as rough, fragile, exploratory
... and unanticipated side-effects should be expected
Are there any actions that would improve more than one of the problems on the list?
Once you have a set of problems, can you share them in a way makes relative comparison possible?
... e.g. score them on hours spent accommodating them
... e.g. bugs found in production because of them
... e.g. number of times they were raised in retro
Can you share them along with your proposed solutions, impacts, and justification for both?
Can you share them along with the things you already did in passing to make them less bad?

Image: Denise Jans on Unsplash

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...

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 ...

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...

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...

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...

Reasonable Doubt

In Your job is to deliver code you have proven to work Simon Willison writes: As software engineers we ... need to deliver code that works — and we need to include proof that it works as well. He is coming at this from the perspective of LLM-assisted coding, but most of what he says applies in general. I think this is a reasonable consise summary of his requirements for developers: Manual happy paths: get the system into an initial state, exercise the code, check that it has the desired effect on the state. Manual edge cases: no advice given, just a note that skill here is a sign of a senior engineer. Automated tests: should demonstrate the change like Manual happy paths but also fail if the change is reverted. He notes that, even though LLM tooling can write automated tests, it's humans who are accountable for the code and it's on us to "include evidence that it works as it should." Coincidentally, just the week before I read his post I told one of my...

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...

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 cod...

Better Isolate Than Never

How do you test a product with distributed logic and non-deterministic components? Well, it depends on the product and when the question is asked. This post is one answer, for now. A service I work on exposes an API for internal and external clients and calls multiple other services. It orchestrates a reasonably complex journey for a user, with their inputs and the responses of the services determining each step. Our customers can configure the service to provide a variant of the standard journey for their users. This gives them choices on the available steps, the order of the steps, and, importantly, some of the logic for taking particular steps. This configuration lives in a different repository to the service, not owned by us, and it can be changed and deployed independently from the service. As you can imagine, we test our service in multiple ways at different granularities using the usual tooling, including unit tests fo...

Open Your Mind

Jerome Groopman, in How Doctors Think , reviews ways in which doctors can make poor choices, identifies potential causes, and suggests some practices, for both doctor and patient, that can help to prevent them. I find this interesting for a couple of reasons: first, I work in the health space, although not in a therapeutic area and, second, I like to reflect on my own thought processes. I'll take three broad themes from Groopman's analysis: the business of healthcare and how that impacts a physician's ability to practice; the doctor-patient relationship and how that impacts the experience of both sides; and the cognitive failings that impact a correct and timely diagnosis for any given patient. Naturally, these overlap. The book is written from the perspective of the notoriously commercialised American medical system and is around 20 years old, so doubtless some of the details are different outside of the US and have changed since pu...

Hiccupps

Search This Blog