Talkin' 'bout test in a differrent light

Pullin' out my big black book
Cause when I need a word defined that's where I look
So I move to the L's quick, fast, in a hurry
Threw on my specs, thought my vision was blurry
I look again but to my dismay
It was black and white with no room for grey
Ya see, a big "V" stood beyond my word
And yo that's when it hit me, that luv is a verb.

Words come easy but they don't mean much
When the words they're sayin' we can put trust in
We're talkin' 'bout love in a different light
And if we all learn to love it would be just right.

- DC Talk


The DC Talk song "Luv is a Verb" points out that love is something to be acted out. Real love is action, not just words and feelings. Love is expressed through action.

Like love, the word test is both a noun and a verb. Also like love, test requires action. Even the noun definitions for test describe action.

test

noun

• trying something out to find out about it
• any standardized procedure for measuring sensitivity or memory or intelligence or aptitude or personality, etc.
• a set of questions or exercises evaluating skill or knowledge
• the act of undergoing testing
• the act of testing something

verb

• put to the test, as for its quality, or give experimental use to
• test or examine for the presence of disease or infection
• examine someone's knowledge of something
• show a certain characteristic when tested
• achieve a certain score or rating on a test
• determine the presence or properties of (a substance)
• undergo a test
  

from Princeton WordNet

While I don't think we'll find anyone that argues that test is not a verb, people involved in software development seem to use it primarily as a noun. I have nothing against the many things we create that we call tests. Our test cases, test code, test charters, and whatever test things we create can be useful tools -- but they are not the test.


Let's think about test in a different light.

Several years ago, Shrini Kulkarni challenged me in questioning whether there can be such a thing as an automated test. I don't think I disagreed with Shrini. I've not been one to trust testing to machines, but I've been a fan of automation throughout my testing career. I've automated many testing tasks, but not believed I can automate the testing itself.

Earlier this year, Michael Bolton told me of a distinction he was thinking about between checking and testing. While I had no disagreement with this distinction, I wasn't thrilled with the terms. I wanted something more descriptive. I thought Michael was making a distinction I had been trying to make: a distinction between validation and investigation. I've since come to understand that Michael is making a slightly different distinction. Michael has recently written a series of blog posts better describing the Checking vs. Testing distinction. Michael has limited the scope of checking to observations and decisions rules that can be executed without sapience -- without a brain-engaged human. If something requires human sapience, it is testing, not checking.

Yesterday, an insightful tester, Lanette Cream, made a nice attempt at defining test on her blog. In her latest revision, she defines test as follows.

A test is
an action
which produces discoveries
that can be used to evaluate product quality.

I like that this definition identifies action, discovery, and evaluation as being core to testing. However, I'm thinking of pushing, or rather constraining, this just a bit further.

What if we were to say that the evaluation is the action and discovery is the goal?

A test would then be the sapient part of validation or investigation -- the thinking and learning that cannot be automated. All those other things we do to test are really support activities that help us evaluate.

Test is not a document. Test is not code. Test is not executing a program. Test is not applying a procedural decision rule. Test is not anything that can be done by a machine. Test is the act of evaluating. Test requires sapience.

Test is thinking and learning that leads to discovery. We may test by evaluating existing data. We may test by running experiments that produce new data. We may take the output of automated checks to test. We may provide what we learn as input to coding new automated checks. The test is the action we perform in our minds.

This may come across as nitpicking vocabulary. That's not my intent. My goal is not to limit anyone's definition of test, but rather to shed a different light on what I believe sets testing apart from checking, and gives both checking and testing value.

If a check fails in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

The true value of our checking and testing is in the mind of a sapient tester. What value is there in all the things we call checks and tests without a tester (whatever their role or title) evaluating information and learning?

Test is sapient evaluation that leads to discovery

.

I'm not quite comfortable with this. I want the emphasis to be on the sapient activity; and not generating and collecting data to support the thinking without ignoring that it is a necessary part of testing.

Regardless of where we shine the light or draw lines, let's keep in mind that test is a verb.

What do you think? Testing of my half-baked ideas is welcome and appreciated.

Evidence That Quality Has Everything To Do With Value

“Quality is value to some person.”

Gerald Weinberg,
Quality Software Management – Systems Thinking

This morning, Jason Gorman's blog post title Proof That Value Has Little To Do With Quality? caught my attention. This title contradicts my definition of Quality. To me, Quality is all about value to stakeholders.

Quality is not about implementing the best development practices. Quality is not about writing solid code. Quality may not be about impressive features. Quality may have no relation to elegance. Quality may not even be reliable. Quality may be cheap or it may be expensive. Quality may be well planned or it may be haphazard.

Quality is all about value. Quality is about value to people that matter.

Jason references an interesting article about a web site that started as a learning exercise and "seems to come from the Anti-Perfectionist School of Design", yet is profiting its creator millions of dollars annually. In spite of many flaws, this web site is profitable because users find it valuable and users bring advertising dollars. I consider this to be a high quality web site in spite of its obvious flaws because it has value to people who matter. Instead of viewing this as an example of value having little to do with quality, I see this as a great example of Quality having everything to do with value. I suspect that Jason and I define Quality differently. This story is an example of how value sometimes has very little to do with all the other things we often call Quality.

Perhaps my thinking is too touchy-feely for those who think we need to measure and assure Quality through quantitative metrics and processes enforcement. By it's very nature, quality is subjective. Sometimes we can quantify the results of Quality: as in the $10 million in annual advertising profits. I suspect that some of you are subjectively estimating how better metrics and process might lead to better profits.

The real measure of Quality is a measure of value (not necessarily quantitative value) to those who matter.

"As professionals, we have no real control over the ultimate value of the software we create. And neither do our customers, or requirements analysts, or product owners, or whoever it is who's been charged with figuring out what the best use of the budget would be. It's all guesswork, like choosing lottery numbers or selecting which horse to bet on."
- Jason Gorman,
Proof That Value Has Little To Do With Quality?

While there is guesswork in determining who matters and what they value, it is not as random as selecting lottery numbers. Better understanding of who matters and what they value can help us reduce the guesswork. Ongoing dialog can bring better understanding. If Quality is nothing more than a lottery, then we might as well limit ourselves to BUFD and scripted manual testing.

Interactions, collaboration, and responding to our changing understandings can help us take control over Quality.

"Above all, listen to what your customers are telling you about Quality. ... Your customers are in a perfect position to tell you about Quality, because that's all they're really buying. They're not buying a product. They're buying your assurances that their expectations for that product will be met. ... Your customers may not have all the hard business facts. They may not be aware of your specs and your standards and your inspection reports ... They may not be able to give you a precise definition of Quality, but one thing's for certain -- they know it when they see it."

-John Guaspari,
I Know It When I See It: A Modern Fable About Quality

And, as Jason rightly points out, what satisfies users (and the business) today may not satisfy them tomorrow. Keep the dialog going.