We’re the voice

A few things have crossed my feeds in the last couple of weeks around the context-driven testing community, so thought I’d post my thoughts on them here.

It’s always good to see a new edition of Testing Trapeze magazine and the April edition was no exception in providing some very readable and thought-provoking content. In the first article, Hamish Tedeschi wrote on “Value in Testing” and made this claim:

Testing communities bickering about definitions of inane words, certification and whether automation is actually testing has held the testing community back

I don’t agree with Hamish’s opinion here and wonder what basis there is for claiming that these things (or indeed any others) have “held the testing community back” – held it back from what, compared to some unknown state of where it might have been otherwise?

Michael Bolton tweeted shortly after this publication went live (but not in response to it) that:

Some symptoms [of testers who don’t actually like testing] include fixation on tools (but not business risk); reluctance to discuss semantics and why chosen words matter in context.

It seems to be a common – and increasingly common – target of those of us in the context-driven testing community that we’re overly focused on “semantics” (or “bickering about definitions of inane words”). We’re not just talking about the meaning of words for the sake of it, but rather to “make certain distinctions clear, with the goal of reducing the risk that someone will misunderstand—or miss—something important” (Michael Bolton again, [1]).

 

I believe these distinctions have led to less ambiguity in the way we talk about testing (at least within this community) and that doesn’t feel like something that would hold us back, rather the opposite. As an example, the introduction (and refinement) of “testing” and “checking” (see [2]) was such an important one, it allows for much easier conversations with many different kinds of stakeholders about the differences – in a way that the terminology of “validation” and “verification”, for example, really didn’t.

While writing this blog post, Michael posted a blog in which he mentions this subject again (see [3]):

Speaking more precisely costs very little, helps us establish our credibility, and affords deeper thinking about testing

Thanks to Twitter, I then stumbled across an interview between Rex Black and Joe Colantonio, titled “Best Practices Vs Good Practices – Ranting with Rex Black” (see [4]). In this interview, there are some less than subtle swipes at the CDT community, e.g. “Rex often sees members of the testing community take a common phrase and somehow impart attributes to it that no one else does.” The example used for the “common phrase” throughout the interview is “best practices” and, of course, the very tenets of CDT call the use of this phrase into question.

Rex offered up an awesome rebuttal to use the next time you find yourself attempting to explain best practices to people, which is: Think pattern, not recipe.

How can some people have such an amazingly violent reaction to such an anodyne phrase? And why do they think it means “recipe” when it’s clearly not meant that way?

In case you’re unfamiliar with the word, “anodyne” is defined in the Oxford English dictionary as meaning “Not likely to cause offence or disagreement and somewhat dull”. So, the suggestion is that the term “best practices” is unlikely to cause disagreement and therein lies the exact problem with using it. Rex suggests that we “take a common phrase [best practices] and somehow impart attributes to it that no one else does” (emphasis is mine). The fact that he goes on to offer a rebuttal to mis-use of the term suggests to me that the common understanding of what it means is not so common. Surely it’s not too much of a stretch to see that some people might see “best” as meaning “there are no better”, thus taking so-called “best practices” and applying them in contexts where they simply don’t make any sense.

Still in my Twitter feed, it was good to see James Christie continuing his work in standing against the ISO 29119 software testing standard. You might remember that James presented about this at CAST 2014 (see [5]) and this started something of a movement against the imposition of a pointless and potentially damaging standard on software testing – the resulting “Stop 29119” campaign was the first time I’d seen the CDT community coming together so strongly and voicing its opposition to something in such a united way (I blogged about it too, see [6]).

It appears that some of our concerns were warranted with the first job advertisements now starting to appear that demand experience in applying ISO 29119.

James recently tweeted a link to a blog post (see [7]):

Has this author spoken to any #stop29119 campaigners? There’s little evidence of understanding the issues.
http://intland.com/blog/agile/test-management/iso-29119-testing-standard-why-the-controversy/ … #testing

Read the blog post and make of it what you will. This part stood out to me:

Innitally there was controversy over the content of the ISO 29119 standard, with several organizations in opposition to the content (2014).  Several individuals in particular from the Context-Driven School of testing were vocal in their opposition, even beginning a petition against the new testing standards, they gained over a thousand signatures to it.  The opposition seems to have been the result of a few individuals who were ill – informed about the new standards as well as those that felt excluded from the standards creation process

An interesting take on our community’s opposition to the standard!

To end on a wonderfully positive note, I’m looking forward to attending and presenting at CAST 2017 in Nashville later in the year – a gathering of our community is always something special and the chance to exchange experiences & opinions with the engaged folks of CDT is an opportunity not to be missed.

We’re the voices in support of a context-driven approach to testing, let’s not be afraid to use them.

References

[1] Michael Bolton “The Rapid Software Testing Namespace” http://www.developsense.com/blog/2015/02/the-rapid-software-testing-namespace/

[2] James Bach & Michael Bolton “Testing and Checking Refined” http://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/856

[3] Michael Bolton “Deeper Testing (2): Automating the Testing” http://www.developsense.com/blog/2017/04/deeper-testing-2-automating-the-testing/

[4] Rex Black and Joe Colantonio “Best Practices Vs Good Practices – Ranting with Rex Black” https://www.joecolantonio.com/2017/04/13/best-practices-rant/

[5] James Christie “Standards – Promoting Quality or Restricting Competition” (CAST 2014)

[6] Lee Hawkins “A Turning Point for the Context-driven Testing Community” https://therockertester.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/a-turning-point-for-the-context-driven-testing-community/

[7] Eva Johnson “ISO 29119 Testing Standard – Why the controversy?” https://intland.com/blog/agile/test-management/iso-29119-testing-standard-why-the-controversy/

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s