The accepted, overplayed archetypes present in the Tourist made me think about testing.  Just like the movie clichés, we’re so stupid in freely accepting bullshit testing patterns and practices.  MY definition of a bullshit testing pattern or practice: one that doesn’t work for your situation. Testing methods that might be pure gold to your project might be pure garbage to another.  (We can’t all be Charlie Sheen, converting “tin cans into pure gold”).  I’ve heard it said that there are no best practices in testing, only good ones.  The worst thing you can do as a QA group is do work that doesn’t somehow help the quality of your software.  When doing anything in testing, you need to ask yourself, what’s my return on investment (ROI)?  Is the testing that we’re doing telling us anything about the code?

One area that seems to be rife with bullshit is test automation.  YES, I SAID IT!!!  In fact, if you’re using off-the-shelf test automation tools (like Mercury products), then there’s a 90% chance (with a +-10% margin of error) that your test automation is complete and utter bullshit!  Before you get mad at me, ask yourself, how many bugs have you found by running that behemoth suite of tests?  How has it helped your product actually get better?  Are you getting any assurance that your product is up and running?  Was it worth the oil sheik fortune that you paid for it?

Let me give you a real world example on automation bullshit.  There’s this product team that I have intimate knowledge of.  This product team has both unit tests (JUnit) and Selenium UI tests being written against their code base.  The unit tests are being run with each build, and the build won’t complete if any tests break.  The Selenium tests are scheduled to run nightly in Hudson at various intervals so they don’t overlap.  Except for a one hour reserved maintenance window, the Selenium tests keep the servers busy all night.  Yet, with all this “testing” that is being done, the product still often arrives to the QA team egregiously broken.  Why is that?  Don’t the unit tests find problems?  The offshore team writing the Selenium tests told me that they have 700+ tests running at regular intervals.  He went on to say that they have no bugs to report from running those tests, but when they do, they will let me know.  Hmm, so you’ve spent months creating these suites, and you aren’t finding any bugs?  On the other hand, you’ve paid another team to write unit tests on code they didn’t write, and major problems are still getting through?  You have these Cobetura reports show that you’re getting close to complete coverage on the code base.  Complete coverage and there’s still problems.  YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!  WHAT A STEAMING LOAD OF BULLSHIT!!!  One team is writing Selenium tests.  One team is writing JUnit tests.  And there are no bugs to show for it.  There are no red flags showing us potential defects.  There is no confident assurance that anything is working or not working.  I think it’s safe to say that the company is getting a negative return on their testing investment.  And that, in this case, automation is a complete waste of time.

Obviously, JUnit, Cobertura, and Selenium aren’t bad tools.  They just happen to be bad tools in the wrong hands–in the wrong situations.  They are used to create all these “tests”.  Instead of just accepting these “tests”, teams should be testing that the tests do something meaningful.  They should be looking to the yield of the fruits of their labor, not how much work they’ve done.   For every automated test written, you should prove how it can fail by making it fail. Think about it!  Test it!  Have others think about it too!

Let’s get away from automation because my point isn’t to trash automation.  Here’s another example.  Given Agile’s popularity, I think the full manual regression of a product is very passé.  The full regression of a big product could take weeks or months.  If your dev team is adding code everyday, then it’s not pragmatic to take on a full regression.  You need to be more surgical with your testing, more precise.  Focus on testing the parts that are actually effected by change.  The full regression is one of those archetypes that’s accepted because it’s familiar, but it’s unrealistic, antiquated, and pretty stupid in a continuous integration world.  However, you may be in an industry that requires that kind of attention to every detail.  And in your case, that might not be a bullshit testing practice.

My point is not to tell you what you’re doing to test your product is bullshit.  My point is to wake you up to practices that aren’t helping your product.  I understand that not all tests are created to find problems, but some testing is there to assure you don’t have problems (regression testing).  However, are you sure that your tests will reveal a problem when there is a problem?  My point is to be skeptical.  Don’t just do something because you saw it done like this when you worked at IBM or AT&T.  Don’t just do something because that’s the only thing you know to do.  Do something because it’s going to make the code better.  Start with a goal for the testing in mind.  If your goal is to tell you X, then come up with scenarios where that X would be revealed.  Then execute those scenarios!  Just like we don’t trust the developer code handed to us.  Don’t let your left hand trust the test case that your right hand created.  Remember, at the end of the day, it’s all about the return on investment.  Just like developers deliver value by coding something useful, testers need to deliver value by uncovering problems or telling the true story of the product.

And no other group on the whole face of the earth is better at pointing out flaws than software testers.  But when does testing go too far?  When are our scenarios become too outlandish to reasonably fit into reality?

Here’s an actual scenario:

For the past couple weeks, we’ve been trying to get some new hire testers up to speed on our product.  They are zealous and making good progress.  One of these testers found an address control in our UI that’s doing no validation between the City, State, and Zip.  i.e you can put in “CA” for the state and “10100″ for the zip.  Clearly without looking, you can tell that a California zip would have a lot higher number than that.  And if you match it up for the city, you can be even more specific.  Good find.  It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that those values should be validated.  That’s a very basic thing now.  There are services out there to assist with that.  Not hard to develop; we did lots of that kind of stuff at Edfinancial.  The tester submitted the “Bug” to development, and they denied it on the grounds that it works as coded and no requirements to validate the City, State, and Zip.  That’s a reasonable response too.  Though it’s a defect that might cause a problem given a certain data set, it’s really management’s call on whether it needs to be fixed.

This zealous new tester decided to write a response to development, arguing that they must fix it because it could put our company in legal troubles, violating compliance and privacy agreements.  Though my senior in age and experience, he wisely asked me advice on whether to send it or not.  Given my knowledge of the culture,  I told him there’s no way in Hell that I would commit that response to the ticket.  He did his job.  He reported the defect, explaining the scenario nicely.  End of story.  Just drop it.  He countered with other passionate arguments that the mail from us might end up in a competitor’s hand, given a Zip Code mix up, and it might cost our company millions of dollars to straighten out the problem.  I told him that his arguments weren’t really sound because the probability of that actually happening is slim to none.  Out of the millions of addresses in the US, what is the chance that the letter, because of a bad Zip Code, could end up in a competitor’s hand?  Even if it did, what are the chances that the competitor would open mail not directed to them?  Even if they did, what kind of ruthless havoc could they inflict on our company?  They certainly wouldn’t want to advertise that they broke federal law by opening someone else’s mail.  In my mind, it’s a moot point.  Maybe it could happen, but there’s no realistic chance.

Epiphany:

Then it hit me!  As developers underplay the chances of their bugs causing a problem, we testers often overplay the effects of leaving bugs in! We traffic in hyperbole as much if not more than developers.  We predict doom and gloom when the truth is everything will probably be fine.  So, why do we do it?

• The Business Loves Emergencies: Maybe we believe that if we don’t paint a picture of Armageddon, it won’t ever get fixed.  At my company, there’s nothing like a good fire to get the coders up and running, especially when it happens at odd hours!
• Hedging Against Disaster: Maybe we can’t represent the bug in proper context because we’re afraid that it might be bigger than we expected.  We say it’s no problem, then it’s the BP oil spill.  It’s better to be on the “I told you so” end of a disaster.
• Self-Importance: Maybe we have to make the bugs look bigger so that we can feel better about the contribution we’re making.  Maybe we’re a bunch of ego maniacs starved for accolades.

Final Thought:

As a tester, credibility is king.  If you’re a credible, the business will heed just your word.  If you’re a chicken little tester, clucking at every little thing, they will take everything you say with a grain of salt.  Be honest as you can with yourself.  ”To thine own self be true, ” as The Bard said.  Don’t focus on the trivial.  Focus on the big picture.  Focus on testing!

Postscript:

Here’s something interesting.  According to one of our subject matter experts, the suspect address control isn’t being used by ANY of our current customers.  So, the lack of validation is all really “Much ado about nothing.”  Two Shakespeare references in one post!  Score!

I was in the middle of making a rather lengthy comment on Daniel’s most recent blog post when I decided it was long enough to warrant a full posting.

I wanted to get across the point that the situation Daniel finds himself in is not solely the plight of the software tester. Rather, anyone who esteems software quality runs the risk of being criticized, dismissed, or made fun of. Why is it that organizations and groups are so resistant to something that will improve their process, their product, and their bottom line. The idea is one I have been thinking a lot about, and I believe I have had an epiphany.

Sometimes, people are more afraid of success than failure!

Wait… what did you say?!? You heard right, and I’ll say it again. Sometimes, people are more afraid of success than failure.

I recently gave a presentation where I cited the Microsoft study on TDD that found:

The results of the case studies indicate that the pre-release defect density of the four products decreased between 40% and 90% relative to similar projects that did not use the TDD practice. Subjectively, the teams experienced a 15–35% increase in initial development time after adopting TDD.

The idea that up to 90% of your test and fix cycles can be eliminated represents an enormous cost savings even if you factor in the high end estimate of 35% increase in initial development time. You will more than make that time up by not having to fix the 90% of bugs that are now gone from the system. With numbers like that you would think that management would be breaking people’s knuckles for not using TDD. Developer’s would be falling over themselves to TDD even the smallest spec of code just to avoid doing maintenance (curse the ground that software maintenance walks on).

But alas, there was no stampede. No rush to go forth and test. No proclamation from management that it must be so. So… what gives?

What gives is that it might just work! Developers might just write cleaner code, and be more productive. Testers might be able to confirm code quickly and have the freedom to explore automated acceptance testing. Deadlines might be met, and the company might save money. And… and… we might have to admit that we have been doing it all wrong for a very long time.

And there it is; the big white elephant in the room of software quality. Not fear of failure, but fear of success. Because success means having to admit things can and should be better. Even worse, that they could have been better all along. And we don’t like that. Most of us like to think we are pretty smart, that we are pretty damn good at what we do. When someone shows us a better way, our little bubble bursts, and we are forced to admit that we aren’t as special as we’d like to think we are.

The mediocre will always defend the status quo because their sense of worth is derived from being the smartest, funniest, sexiest, whateverist person around. They are a big fish in a little pond, and they like it that way.

The exceptional are never satisfied with the quality of their own work. They assume that there must be a better way, and seek out the best and brightest in the world to learn from. They draw their sense of worth from knowing they are better today than they were yesterday.

Exceptionalism is the arch-enemy of mediocrity, and success is it’s kryptonite!

I was very impressed by the people that attended the talk.  They were all software developers and highly technical. Plus, they all seemed interested in testing.  (Of course, when I pulled out the candy, people got even more interested.)  I was glad to have an audience that challenged, asked questions, and made terrific observations and points.  People mentioned technologies they used.  They talked about patterns and approaches, citing real world implementations.  As I speaker, I couldn’t ask for more.

Not one person from my current company came to the presentation, though I informed everyone through email with notice.  That seems reasonable.  The presentation was downtown KC (our company is 25 mins away in the suburbs); someone would have had to be very interested in coming to want to go.  Either that or really owe me a favor (i.e. I went to one of their presentations or baby sat for their kids).  I wasn’t shocked that no one came.  What I was shocked about was how few people replied to wish me luck or asked me about it.  This is after I sent out an email with the phrase, “I’m presenting on Exploratory Testing tomorrow, April 27^th at 7:00 pm at the DotNext meeting.  Wish me luck.”  Three people out of 30 wished me luck.  And one guy asked me about it the next day.  That tells me that people don’t care.  And they don’t even care about faking to care.  What does that tell you?  Two groups of software developers: one group wanted to listen (total strangers) and one didn’t want to condescend interest (people I know).

Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and among his own relatives and in his own household.” (Mark 6:4)

Most of the time, QA people don’t get the respect they deserve.  Working with my colleague Marisa  at Edfinancial, QA was well respected and not seen as the pariahs of the group.  Most organizations don’t respect their QA prophets.  We, the prophets, tell them that their shortcuts are going to bite them in the butt.  We tell them that standards and sound process will help things, and they don’t believe us.  We tell them that bugs need to be fixed and defects are dangerous, and they don’t listen.  No only will they not listen, but they also want to stone us and run us out of town.

My question is where do you, as a QA prophet, draw your purpose and satisfaction?

Here’s the part that I give the answer, right?

Wrong.  I don’t have the answer.  All I know is that it’s probably something intrinsic.  I think that will and desire have to come from within.

If you are a little lost by the title, it will all make sense in a moment… um… sort of.

Until I started my career as a software developer I worked a lot of other jobs. I have had a job since I was 16 years old, and that was just an excuse to get out of doing manual work for my parents around the house. I’ve worked as a bagger at a grocery store, cashier at a big-box-mart, usher, concessions, and box clerk for a movie theater, tech support for a DSL provider, general laborer for a masonry outfit, and the last job I worked before slinging code full-time was waiting tables.

All of these jobs really have one thing in common: I was the person who always caught the tail end of the customer’s experience: whether it was good or bad… especially when it was bad!

Waiting tables is an interesting experience, and one I think everyone should have to do at least once in their life. As a waiter you are the face of the dining experience for the customer. Before the customer even gets there, you are preparing the store to make their time enjoyable. You clean the kitchen, wash dishes, stock pantry items, napkins, silverware. You go over your section to make sure that everything is set up correctly and clean.

Once a table in your section has been seated, as far as the customer is concerned, you are the restaurant. You size up the customer to figure out what kind of approach you should take (believe me it makes a difference). You give them an overview of the menu, get their drinks, throw out a couple of suggestions, and meticulously write down the order  making double sure to repeat back the order so there are no misunderstandings. Without delaying, you ensure that the order is put into the computer accurately and check to see that the kitchen staff gets the ticket. If needed you even explain any nuances of the order to the cooks: “‘SUB BAKER ADD CHEESE.’ Hey Joe, they want a baked potato instead of mashed, and they want to add cheese to the sandwich, NOT the baker!”

While waiting for the food you are feverishly busing, washing, and resetting tables for the next set of patrons that walk into your section; you make sure they think they are the first people to sit there. A single spec of food left on the table or the floor can ruin the whole meal! Every time you walk into the kitchen you are checking the status of your food.

“307 IN THE WINDOW!”

Your order is up and now you are checking every detail to make sure the food you have matches the ticket. You tidy up the presentation a little and make sure the plates are picture perfect. Drop the food off to the table and make sure they have everything they need: drink, condiments, extra napkins, steak knives, etc… You let the table dig in and about two minutes later you come back to make sure everything was up to par. You never take them at their word either! You have to actually look at their plates, and their faces to see if they are telling the truth. Most people are too sheepish to tell you everything sucks, and they will simply not come back to the restaurant if the experience is bad. It is up to you to see this and recover their patronage.

Ok. So what? Why waste your time with this?

Because QA and waiting tables have a lot in common. As QA, you are the standard bearer for a quality user experience much the same way that a waiter is the standard bearer for a quality dining experience. In order to really be effective you have to be involved in the process from start to finish. You need to be there when the user story is first conceptualized in order to effectively develop a testing strategy. You need to determine the set of criteria by which a story can be considered done (acceptance criteria). You also need a repeatable way to ensure the story as coded meets those criteria (Fit/FitNesse, StoryTeller, Selenium).

As the story is being developed you need to be in constant communication with the developer (cook) to make sure that any misunderstandings are cleared up immediately. Developers make assumptions if the acceptance criteria are vague. So find out what those assumptions are, and refine your acceptance tests accordingly. Be proactive about communicating your testing strategy to the developer(s) working on the story so they won’t be tempted to just throw it over the wall. A good developer will make your job easier here, but good acceptance tests do NOT care how well written the code is. Remember that your main goal is not to find bugs, but to verify that the feature/product will meet the customers needs. An acceptance test that fails is not a bug, it is simply an incomplete feature, and we don’t ship incomplete features.

Being a QA professional takes a lot of discipline and involves a lot of responsibility, but it is your job as a professional to demand software quality above all else. A professional will stand on principle in this area while an amateur will make excuses for the level of quality… “I don’t have enough time to do automated testing! The developers write bad code! My boss doesn’t appreciate QA!”… All those things may be true, and may make it harder to do your job, but it doesn’t change your job!

QA can be a tiring and thankless job, but the professional derives pleasure from a job well done. Be committed to the project/story/user, and not your own hide. This is what separates “testers” from Software Quality Professionals. This is the difference between a great user experience and a mediocre one.

The meal is over, and the customer is satisfied. On their way out the table says “The meal was excellent! Be sure and thank the cook for me,” as they hand you a three dollar tip.

“I’ll do that sir!” You say with a smile, knowing that you did your job. You made sure that everything was perfect. You took care of all the grimy little details so they could concentrate on what they came there for… a good meal.

Then something happened one day!  A fob became available.  As soon as I got the email, I replied to all claiming my stake over the available fob.  Much to the chagrin of the office admin, who seems to have a problem with me, I ended up with the fob!  But she wouldn’t let me physically have it until the registration is changed over in the system.  That should take a day.  I was fine with that, but I shouldn’t have been.  The whole reason for having electronic systems is so that things can happen instantly.  Well, maybe it’s not the system itself.  Maybe it’s the human keying it into the system that’s the bottleneck.

Once I received the fob from our admin, I went to use it.  It didn’t work.  Damn.  I wondered if the office admin was vindictive enough to run a magnet across my fob.  Then I checked myself for thinking so highly of myself.  (Like she really cares enough to sabotage my fob!) I asked a maintenance man, who just happen to be passing by what I can do.  He asked me if I’m suppose to have access.  Did I pay for the fob?  Am I using someone else’s fob?  I was a little annoyed by the questions, but I kept a smile on my face and assured him that I’m suppose to have access.  He then directed me to the 3rd floor office of the building managers.

The lady in there was very cordial, and she told me that it’s possible I wasn’t pointing the fob correctly at the access point.  I knew that the fob should work, but I was willing to condescend her.  We walked down together.  She pointed the fob at the access panel, and sure enough, it didn’t work.  She told me that she didn’t understand; it should work.  Then, as if by magic, she remembered that they are working on the door; they are doing a software upgrade so the system may be down.  Obviously that wasn’t the case because there were people in the gym working out.  If the door was inaccessible, then they wouldn’t have been able to get in.  We went back up to her office.  She told me to call her in the afternoon, and she would attempt to re-add me to the system.  I told her okay, and I took a business card off here desk (she’s on the hook.).

In the afternoon, I called her, and she said that I was already in the system so my fob must be bad.  Come to her office and get another fob.  I get another fob from her, and she said that I’ll probably be good to go.  I told her that if it doesn’t work I’m coming back up stairs to see her.  I went down, and tried it.  No, it didn’t work.  So I marched back up stairs.  I’m very perturbed, but you have to keep on a good face.  She tells me that the software upgrade may have had trouble.  she’ll send one of the maintenance guys to give the fob to me once they get it working.  Later in the day, she calls me and tells me that the problem will be resolved early next week.

On Monday (today), my good friend, the office admin, came by and gave me the fob.  Hmm, I assume they got it working.  Being a tester, I got to go try it.  So I walk over to the workout facility and try it.  It doesn’t work.  I wanted to be mad, but I couldn’t bring myself to be angry.  It’s typical.  I thought they were going to try it before they sent it back over?  That’s what the lady promised.

Immediately, I go upstairs to the property management office.  Another lady greets me, and I tell her who I am.  She apologizes to me.  Apparently the other lady set me up wrong.  She explained that there’s two databases that needed to be updated with the information.  The first lady had just updated one.  Everything should be fine tomorrow once the system updates are in place.  The lady, to her credit, asked me if I wanted to use her fob to go workout.  I told her no; I just would like mine going eventually.  She told me that it should be fine tomorrow.  I told her that I didn’t believe her, but I will try it tomorrow.

WHAT’S THE POINT OF THIS WHOLE STORY?

I’m sick and tired of software excuses!  Don’t tell me the system takes a whole day to update!  I don’t give a crap that the system is down.  I don’t give a crap that two databases need to be updated.  It ought to just work!  As the user, I should be abstracted from all those details.  Here’s my user story: USER MUST BE ABLE TO USE KEY FOB TO OPEN THE DOOR.  Is that complicated?  Why can’t it be simple?  If it was just a regular lock, I  could have went down to Walmart, made a copy of the key, and got back in time to start achieving my fitness goals.  Why are there two databases that need to be updated?  It’s just one flipping door!  Software excuses are so ingrained in society that they are legitimate as “my diabetes is acting up”.  Nobody questions the bullshit of them.  And why is that?  I think it’s because most people don’t understand software.  As someone that understands software better than most of the populous, I say enough is enough.  I don’t care that systems are complex!  Stop the insanity!  This is a work in progress, but here’s my new software manifesto:

Daniel’s New Software Manifesto:

1) Software should be Simple to Use.  If your target user can’t *easily* use it (intuitive), it’s poorly designed, and it should chunked into the fire.

2) Software should Work.  Your software should work 99% of the time.  If your users are constantly complaining about problems with your software, then you suck and need to be chunked into the fire.  Don’t compromise on quality; it’s a slippery slope.  If you evangelize quality (and really mean it), you software will get better.

3) Software should be designed for the User.  I have an infinite amount of respect for Steve Jobs because he gets this.  He doesn’t have software developers (0r testers) designing the UI.  He actually pays people to design the UI so that Apple’s software looks slick and appealing.  I hate that companies are too cheap to invest in a good designer or user experience expert.  Design for the user!

4) Software downtime is Unacceptable.  Downtime is unacceptable for your software.  Make sure it’s up and running.  Regular maintenance is okay, but it’s not great.  The more you make this acceptable; the more downtime you’ll have.  Start with the premise that it’s unacceptable, and you’ll do better with it.

5) Software should fulfill the User’s Need. If you have software to control the access of a door, it better do it’s job.  If it doesn’t let the user in, it’s a utter failure and should be chunked into the fire.

EPILOGUE:

Probably when (if) they resolve my access issue, there will probably be no retrospective to say that things need to be different.  I sure the ladies in that office might feel bad for me, but nothing is going to change in their process.  I’m sure the second lady just thinks that it was a training issue with the first lady (i.e. if she knew that you have to do this and this and update two databases then that would have solved it).  But I really think that’s a wrong way of looking at it.  Maybe the software needs to be simplified.  Maybe they need some quality control in place (i.e. try the fobs on the door before they hand them off).  Maybe they need to restructure access systems.

But here’s the real food for thought: how many times do we as software professionals put the users through Hell and then not care?  I want you to empathize.  Every time you throw out some bullshit code, you are ruining someone’s life.  Do you really want to be the deliverer of misery in the world?  Do you want to blame their woes on your diabetes acting up?  Or do you want to say, “There’s no excuse.  Our servers sucks!  This code sucks!  This system sucks!  It’s imperative that we make it better.  To bring about a better world.”

In some companies, software testing is often used to combat bad practices.  Our code is crap and it’s breaking at every turn, maybe we need some people to test it so we can find the problems.  As awesome as testers are, we can’t save you from your bad decisions.  Do not be deceived!  You reap what you sow.

I believe in quality assurance (making sure the process is sound) more than quality control (making sure the product is sound).  If you’re doing things the right way, you have a great chance of success.  Part of the reason I believe in QA over QC is because of Sun Tzu.  In the Art of War, he  says, “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.”  If you have a good process in place, then you can develop software with confidence that it’s going to be of good quality.  If you have no process or a bad process in place, you’re fighting for quality but only after the bad quality software is complete.

So, what are some things that might make a good software development process:

Code Reviews: One of the biggest things I learned at Edfinancial was the magic of code reviews.  They work on so many levels.  They work:

1. As a device to Share Knowledge among your team.  Are you in a company that has legions of siloed developers working on their own thing?  Put a stop to it!  Implement code reviews.  It forces your team members to see what each other are doing.
2. As a Learning Opportunity.  You want to know how to mentor your young coders?  Have them do code reviews with more experienced coders.  They will learn so much about best practices.  (Personally, I learned a ton from my former colleague Ryan when he did my code reviews.)
3. To Spur Collaboration.  When you have code reviews, this is a great time for spirited debate on the implementation of something.  Also, it prevents someone from completely going off the reservation.  It’s the reality check.  It’s the “What were you smoking?” check.  Many times crazy bad code just gets committed without so much as a once over.  That’s tragic!  Unacceptable!  And easily avoided!
4. To Find Bugs. Besides testers, you know who’s good at finding bugs?  Other developers.  They are great at it!  They are almost always tough on other people’s code, and that’s great for quality.  They will catch the honest mistakes.  Developers often catch their own mistakes as they are showing the code to someone else.  THIS IS BIG!!

Configuration Management: Systems are very complex.  So is code.  So is coordinating several people working on the same code.  You need to make sure that someone is keeping it all straight and enforcing the rules with an iron fist.  You want a process that’s well defined and repeatable.

1. Source Control: You should have all your production code in source control.  If you’re deploying stuff that’s not in source control, SHAME ON YOU!  You source is the life blood of your team.  Without it; you’re dead!
2. Automated Build and Deployment: Nobody should be doing the build and deployment of complex systems completely by hand.  People are too prone to simple errors.  There are countless tools out there that simplify this process.  For shops that do this manually, it’s a gut wrenching experience, but it should actually be as easy as pressing a button.
3. Change Control, Configuration: When you deploy code, do you know exactly what’s going out?  Can you easily tell me what’s been deployed, built, and configured?  If not, then why not?  If you have source control and automated build and deployments, then the change control stuff should be easy.  There ought to be logs documenting that.
4. No Hot Fixes on Production: You should not be making hot fixes on production!  That’s a sign of bigger problems.  And if you do have to make a fix on production it needs to go through a review and approval process.  And it should be the exception, not the rule.  It should never be some lone coder firing new code into production without consulting anyone.  That’s just plain stupid.

Priorities: What the heck are we doing?

1. Requirements: Testers can’t effectively test when there’s no expectation of what the code is suppose to do.  How are we suppose to verify and validate requirements when there are no requirements to look to?  The better question might be how do developers code without requirements?  Companies need to take the time to gather enough requirements to move forward with development.  NO!  YOU’RE NOT BEING AGILE BY HAVING NO REQUIREMENTS OR DIRECTION!  THAT’S CALLED AD HOC CHAOS.
2. Vision: Okay, requirements are a day-to-day thing, but what is the big picture?  What are we trying to accomplish long term?  Note that the less defined the vision is, the less chance that you’ll accomplish something specific.  Oh, and share the vision with the team.  Don’t make it a mystery.
3. Focus: Once you as a company has decided what the development team will work on, don’t constantly change your mind.  A whimsical manager with a big stick can kill productivity more than anything.  One completed piece of software is greater than 10 incomplete pieces.  Keep your eyes on the vision.
4. Realistic Expectations: Some managers think that they can complete software by sheer will.  If I crack the whip hard enough, the developers and testers will work faster.  If the team says 100 hours of development and 100 hours of testing, you as a manager can’t say I need that next Friday.  Sure you delivered it by some arbitrary date, but you will be putting fixes out for the next 6 months.

My assertion is that companies often attack the cosmetic, top level problems instead of attacking the root cause problems.  Testing is often a band aid thrown on the gushing wound.  If they were interested in fixing things, they would attack the root.

I think the big problem is that I am naive.  I assume that companies are indeed interested in fixing those quality issues.  But in truth, they are probably not that interested.  As a top level person in management, it’s more important that I get the product out than it being good quality.  It’s better to sell vaporware than to have a good product and not be able to sell it.  Rather than fix problems, it’s easier to look like you’re fixing problems.  We have quality problems so I hired some testers.  See!  I did what I’m suppose to do.  I didn’t give them power to effect the process, but it’s a nice gesture to have a token tester or two so they can say things like, “That’s whack!”

As long as the money is coming in, does quality really matter anyway?

*Gemba: A Japanese term that’s used in Lean to describe the source of the problem.  Literally translated, it’s “the real place” or “the actual place”.  In the context of manufacturing, it’s the plant manager going down to the assembly line to look at the problems.  I used that particular buzz word because I knew that it would make Bill happy.  Inside joke between us.

Aromas

It actually starts with the very first job I ever held – a barista position at the Aromas coffeehouse on the USD campus. My aunt, who worked at the university, told me about the coffeehouse and put me in contact with the manager. I interviewed over the phone, was hired, and found out when to report for my first day on the job. Of course, I called my aunt and thanked her for the introduction. Realizing I had not asked what it is I should wear my first day, I asked my aunt. “Oh, why don’t you wear a nice dress?” she replied.

I showed up to work in a lovely frock, and the very kind manager complimented me on my dress. The sarcastic assistant manager, however, pulled a “get a load of this gal” move with the thumb-pointing and everything. I wasn’t able to train that day because people learning to use an espresso machine ought not to wear short dresses and risk spilling 200-degree espresso on themselves.

Lesson Learned: Ask about dress code if unsure

First Testing Job

Fast forward 4 years – I was an eager young woman fresh out of college, ready to start making some dough to pay off my student loan. I got my first full-time job at Pacific Life Insurance Company as a QA Analyst. After the introductions throughout the cube farm, my boss sat down with me in my cubicle and handed me a CD so that I could install the product I’d be testing. I took the CD and just sort of stared at my computer for a few seconds…I extended my hand out to the thingy under the monitor that had a lot of buttons on it but could not figure out how to open the dang CD drive. My boss said very slowly “Um…the CPU is under your desk.” Forehead smack! I wonder if my boss freaked out just a tiny bit in that moment after realizing that the person he hired to be a tester couldn’t “work the computer.” Now, of course I could work the computer…thanks to my grandpa, I’d been using one since I was about 7…I was just really nervous!

Lesson Learned: Sometimes you just gotta laugh at yourself

First Agile Testing Job

OK, fast forward another few years. I had over 6 years of software testing experience under my belt and was interviewing for a tester position at Edfinancial Services. My potential future boss asked me for my thoughts on bug documentation. I said very confidently, “I document EVERYTHING.”  The rest of the interview went well, and I got the job.

My first day, my new boss sat down with me for a discussion about testing in an agile environment. We got to talking about bug tracking and he said, “I think tracking bugs found during the sprint is a big waste of time.” My mind immediately zipped back to my proud statement about documenting EVERYTHING. Oops…

Lesson Learned: Be prepared to change the way you’ve “always” done things!

My New Job

And now we’re pretty much all caught up…well, wait a second – I did start a new job yesterday. I’m now a software tester for a small group, and I am stoked to be working with Chris McMahon in this gig. Anyway, Chris and I were going through tutorials about the online app we’ll be testing. One of the tutorials provided a link to a “sample” workspace. I started playing around in the sample workspace and had some questions…I posted my questions on the wiki. Chris, our trainer Marcus (he’s a project manager/developer), and I started chatting about the sample space and Marcus asked me for the URL of the sample space. I barely got the sub-domain out of my mouth and Marcus exclaimed “That’s production!”

Turns out that the tutorials need to be updated.

Lesson Learned*: Some day, you WILL accidentally do something on production

*Actually, this was a reminder for me – I’ve already learned the lesson about messing around with production…brought a DB server completely down unknowingly once.

Well, there we have it. The pattern was not broken. The good news is that I really, really like the group of people I’m working with now, and hopefully won’t have to experience another first day on the job for a long while.

It was an excellent open space format conference.  Naresh Jain and Andrew Chen are great men to organize such an enlightening conference.  Also, thank you sponsors (Univ of Pittsburgh, Agile Alliance, Version One, Pillar, Open Information Foundation, Lean Dog, Foreopen, and Westinghouse.) for enabling us to attend the conference for free.  You guys rock!

To get into the conference, you had to write a position paper on a topic you’re interested in discussing.  My position paper was on “Do we, as software testers, really matter?”  You can go read it if you want, but it’s one of the most depressing pieces I have ever written so you’ve been warned.  Basically, the premise of the paper is does it make sense to have software testers anymore or is it a deprecated trade with the evolution of software development?  When I talk about the evolution of software development, I’m talking about things like Test-Driven Development (TDD).  Since developers are being to take a test first, proactive stance toward quality, are we as pure software testers still needed?

Roles?  Where we’re going we don’t need roles:

One of the guys brought forth the position that “roles are evil”.  Basically, his position was something like roles within a software team are damaging because it silos responsibility to one person.  For example, if something breaks in production, then the tester is at fault for not testing that particular part.  There were several people that agreed that the team should take responsibility for all aspects of the development of the software.  Instead of concrete roles, teams should have “specializing generalists”.  What that means is that you should hire exceptional people that are talented enough to fill many roles (writing code, testing, talking to the business, architecture) but maybe specialize in one or two things.  I call this the “Commando Concept”.  In commando teams, you might have a medic, a demolition expert, a linguist, a martial arts expert, but they are all commandos.  Everyone should have should general knowledge in each area.  If a man gets hurt, everyone on the team should be able to give him medical help.  If they need to take down a bridge, everyone should be able to set up the charges and blow up the bridge.  Of course, they all need to know how to handle a hand-to-hand combat situation.  In the same way, software team members need to be able to cover all roles in order to get things done.  I liked the concept.  I thought it was great.

Reality:

All of this sounds good, but in reality, it never works that way.  One woman named Audrey brought up the fact that when everyone is responsible for an item, no one is responsible.  Things that no one wants to do just fall through the cracks and don’t get done.  For instance, there’s many developers out there that really hate testing (I was surprised to find so many developers that love testing at the SDT Conference).  Some loath testing because they could be writing more code instead of testing.  So, instead of testing the code that needs to be  tested, they might take another coding task, and the testing never gets done.  Maybe it’s touch points with the business, where nobody wants to go talk to the business to hear about their technical pain points.  Roles are in place to make sure that someone takes up the responsibility for what needs to be done.  The tester position is in place so that someone on the team worries about quality control and quality assurance.  Testers think differently, and it takes a little time to switch between a developer hat and a tester hat.  Sure developers can write unit tests and check basic logic and functionality, but who’s going to find the strange bugs that can only be found through exploratory testing?  (And yes, these bugs exist.)  Can you find people that have the talent to fulfill all the roles and have enough motivation to do them well?  Even if you have exceptional people that can be a tester, a developer, a business person, and a user, can you get enough of them to fill a whole team?  In reality, most businesses can’t afford to retain that many exceptional people.  It comes down to pure economics.  For a business, it’s cheaper to have one rock star that can do anything and the rest of the people functional in their one role.  If you have a team of rock stars, then the company will break up that team and put one rock star on every team.  Or those exceptional people will leave the company in search of better opportunities.  Or worse, the company sees their greatness and makes them into a manager, giving them a raise and throwing all their talent to the curb to be eaten by rats, birds, squirrels, ants, and raccoons.

Conclusion:

There may be enough exceptional people out there that can form a team, take on all roles, but trust me, the company will be unwilling to pay for those people.  Even if they get them, they won’t be able to keep them.  Since we may not be able to get the pure, roleless team, let’s look at what we can do.  I think that you assemble teams, and you give them the expectation that everyone is responsible for everything, especially quality.  To borrow from the band U2, I’ll call this the “One“ Philosophy.  ”When it’s one need…We have to carry each other.”   As a team you have ONE goal: release high quality software.  It’s not your part and my part.  It’s the summation of all our parts.  It’s all or nothing!  One!  We have help each other out and fight through our collective short comings.  ”We’re one but we’re not the same…We have to carry each other.”  Your role is developer.  My role is tester.  We are not in the same role, but regardless we have to carry each other to reach our goal: release high quality software.  As you embrace this philosophy of One, you will see the roles become fuzzy.  A developer might do testing.  A tester might gather additional requirements.  And a business analyst might fix the code.  OKAY, THE LAST ONE MIGHT BE A STRETCH!  But the point is once you carry (care) for each other, those roles won’t matter.  One will matter.

Watch the Video – U2 “One”

Great Scott! Hear the echoes and screams.
Hide your developers and product owners.
Lock the doors to the server room!
Here comes the Night of the Living Dead.
They are coming to test our software!
Their slow, reanimated bodies march to
The hypnotic spell of predetermined test cases.
They mindlessly push the buttons
On outdated automated test suites.
They write copious, bloated documentation
That no one will read!
If you are a free thinking software tester,
They are coming for you!
God help us! God help us all!

Zombie Testing: Mindlessly  executing a program with the intent of filling spreadsheets with useless data, writing thick boiler plate bug reports, and meeting company metrics.  Find bugs is a secondary pursuit.  Any requirements verifications should be done to the letter; there’s no reason to check the intent of the requirements.

It’s true that zombies walk among us!  Your fellow software testers might be zombie testers!  But how do you know?  I’m going to lay out some indicators that might out your colleague as a zombie:

• They act with mindless disregard toward their job (Passive not Proactive).

Testers that have turned display a mindless disregard for their job.  They do not think; their brains are not buzzing with activity!  They are not analyzing requirements, looking for ambiguities.  They are not listening to conversations about new software implementation.  They are not engaged with investigating bugs to find the root cause.  They don’t communicate their unsubstantiated concerns and hunches to the developers or the project managers.  Zombie testers never pick up on disconnects between technical people and customers, nor would they intervene to increase understanding anyway. They particularly like it when these test cases are written by a QA manager and just executed by them.  Less thinking = better!

• They protect the status quo, rejecting new methods of testing.

Not only are their minds soft, but they will seek to eat the brains of all who challenge the group think.  They stifle creativity.  They have a “not invented here” mentality.  Zombie testers will continue to look for bugs using the same heuristics, and they will continue to believe that they are being effective.  Anyone that questions this status quo will be dealt with severely.  Past successes will be used to give credence to their methods; they will point to the relative stability of the group’s code base.  They will reject radical new testing paradigms like Exploratory Testing in favor of set, predetermined test cases.  Using their super lethargic strength, they will cursh all dissenters until they are assimilated as zombie testers too.  Stay clear!  Their complacency is overpowering!

• They don’t question developers, other testers, managers, authority figures, or process; they just march slowly and aimlessly in stride with everyone else.

A tester that doesn’t challenge anyone or anything displays traits of potential zombification.  Zombie testers will never go against software developers; they will assume that since the developer is an eccentric genius they must know what they are doing.  After all, complicated and over-engineered code is better; right?  When the developer makes statements like “I know what the business wants more than they do”, a zombie tester will agree that this technical person knows the business better than the business people.  Zombie testers won’t disagree with other testers that have more experience than them; after all, these senior testers have written more tests than them.  These senior testers also protect the status quo, which is great!  Zombie testers won’t disagree with their supervisors, even if their supervisor comes in with some crappie half-baked idea that he learned at a conference.  They won’t question the guru testers that have written the books.  Never mind the fact that some of those grey hair gurus haven’t tested since COBOL was en vogue.

• They place too much faith in automated testing.

To a testing zombie, automated tests are the end all be all!  Every test requires a hammer, and our automated test platform is a big ass hammer.  Mindlessly crank these things out.  It’s easy!  Just model each test on the countless examples that are already in the massive suites.  There’s something so therapeutic about not having to think while writing test scripts.  It’s like watching TV.  These zombies love to push the button on the suite and watch as all their tests come up green.  They are all green so that must mean that the tests are all valid, cover the code correctly, and actually test what we want to test.  If the tester starts to question the integrity of the testing harness or decides to manually check something, he or she is probably not a zombie.  He or she is probably a healthy tester doing their job.

• They are more proud of the pretty documentation than the actual bugs they found.

One time, Bill had an interview with a tester candidate that was truly excited about the organization and prettiness of her bug reports.  He told me that in his head, he was thinking, “NO!  I don’t care about that.  I want you to find bugs, not write reports!”  If your testers really start to glow and brag about their documentation, then they might have already turned.  If they are overly critical about the way you write up your bugs or insist that you use boiler plate sheets, then be standoffish.  They might be feasting on your brains at any moment!  Tester zombies are slow, but they can be fast to protect the status quo.  If your tester is  not excited about they bugs they found or the innovative approaches they took to finding them, be very concerned!  Note: zombie testers tend to value metrics, methods, procedures, and systems more than they value making a difference in the quality of the software.  If they constantly quote material from the ISTQB certification test, then analyze how pedantic their tone is.  The more pedantic their tone, the more they’ve turned.