New Model Testing: A New Test Process and Tool

New Model Testing:A New Test Process and Tool

@paul_gerrardPaul [email protected]

gerrardconsulting.comSlide 1Intelligent Definition and Assurance

My Goals in this webinar• Share some R & D with you• Get you thinking about your test

process and opportunities to improve• Show you a brief demo of a tool

we’re working on• Invite collaboration.

Intelligent Definition and Assurance Slide 2

Agenda (my journey)


Test Process

Will Robots Replace Testers?

Tool Architecture

A Demonstration

Testing Styles, Approaches“Structured/Waterfall/ Staged” Testing• Systematic• Transparent, Documented• Reviewable• Auditable• Repeatable, measurable• Automatable• Inflexible, not responsive• Obsolescent/inaccurate

documentation• Prone to biases, inattention• Outdated process• Expensive, Inefficient• Unimaginative, boring

“Exploratory” Testing• Agile (with a small ‘a’)• Improvised, imaginative• Flexible and responsive to change• Faster, cheaper• More effective• Personally enjoyable• Not repeatable• Not easily automated• Little or no documentation• Hard to manage• Hard to scale• Opaque• Not auditable, measurable.

Intelligent Definition and Assurance Slide 4Some of these are perceptions – which vary

Different strokes for different folks• I’ve never believed that these styles are

‘opposites’, rather they differ in emphasis• Like the Agile manifesto, it’s more a set of

values/preferences that drive behaviour:– Differences in scale and timing– Planned v improvisational– Heavy v light documentation– Process and governance v agility and freedom– Etc. etc.

• Is there a fundamental thought process that underpins all testing?


Forget Logistics(for the time being)

Document or not?Automated or manual?

Agile v waterfall?This business or that

business?This technology v that

technology?

ALL Testing is Exploratory

We explore sources of knowledge ...

... to build test models ...... that inform our testing.

Judgement, exploring and testing

Testing(the system)

Our model(s) are adequate

Our model(s) are not adequate

Exploring (sources) Judgement

Createsmodels

Usesmodels

We explore sources of knowledge to build test models that inform our testing

BTW – Do Developers think/explore the same way? I think so.

New Model Testing

My BBC talk: http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/technology/article/art20150522113029398 29 page paper: http://dev.sp.qa/download/newModel

http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/technology/article/art20150522113029398

http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/technology/article/art20150522113029398

http://dev.sp.qa/download/newModel



The New Model• Makes no assumption about logistics, context• It is not a process model with entry/exit

criteria, procedures, deliverables etc.• All models are wrong, but I believe this is

useful– An attempt to understand our thought processes– Our brains can work on several processes

simultaneously– Can help us better understand, information flows,

feedback and review processes, automation etc.– Focuses attention on (test) model-making.


An Obvious Question

Is it feasible to combine the best of structured and

exploratory testing and create a new test approach?

Will Robots Replace Testers?

Some research

There is a paper at: https://tkbase.com/resources/viewResource/14

https://tkbase.com/resources/viewResource/14

https://tkbase.com/resources/viewResource/14

A recent study*…• Over the next two decades, 47% of jobs in the

US may be under threat• It ranks 702 occupations in order of their

probability of computerisation– Telemarketers: 99% likely– Recreational therapists: 0.28% likely– Computer programmers: 48% likely

• Something significant is going on out there• If programmers have a 50/50 chance of being

replaced by robots, we should think seriously on how the same might happen to testers.

* “The future of employment: how susceptible are jobs to computerisation?”http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf


Some systems-related occupations


Occupation Rank (out of 702)

Probability of Computeris-ation

Computer and Information Research Scientists 69 1.5%

Network and Computer Systems Administrators 109 3.0%

Computer and Information Systems Managers 118 3.5%

Information Security Analysts, Web Developers, and Computer Network Architects

208 21%

Computer Occupations, All Other 212 22%Computer Programmers 293 48%Computer Support Specialists 359 65%Computer Operators 428 78%Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers and Weighers

670 98%

Test Automation = Mechanical Tools

What we REALLY need are THINKING TOOLS

The term Test Automation misleads• It misleads as a label because the

whole of testing cannot be automated

• The label is bad, but the scope of Test Automation is what I call ‘Applying’ in the New Model


Testers need Thinking Tools• There are ten testing activities in the New Model– Test automation tools only support one: ‘Applying’

• The remaining nine activities (information gathering, analysis, modelling, challenging, test design and so on) are not well supported

• All require some level of thinking and skills• Checking is possible when a system and its

purpose are well understood and trusted• Test automation tools are simple in principle…

… compared to the rest of the test process.


Four quadrant model of intelligent test tools

Ability to Investigate

Abili

ty to

Cap

ture

Kno

wle

dge

• Text editors, Screen Shots

Models, visualisations, relationships, transformations

• Note Takers

• Mind Maps

• UML/Case Tools

Control, imagination, discernm

ent, foresight

• Pencil and paper, sketching tools



TERMINATORTESTERNot Yet!

Cervaya™Tool Architecture

A nine month bot journey(But it’s been a twenty year

testing journey so far)

Intelligent Definition and Assurance

The vision thing• I want a bot partner/pair that supports

exploratory testing• You know my view (model)

of testing already• Can we use the explore v test paradigm in a bot

that allows you to:– Explore, take notes and model– Record ideas, risks, tests, outcomes and bugs– Generate reports and documentation as a

consequence, rather than requiring you write them• Codename: Cervaya (cervaya.com is a holding page for now)

Slide 21

Schematic


Schema ServerSchema

Manager(web site)

Schema Repository

(web service)

Cervaya Bot ClientRobot Engine

Cervaya Server

Actions(web services)

Application Web Site

Speech Recognition

Interface

Command Line

Interface

Administer Schemas through the Web

DownloadSchema Perform Robot

Actions through services

Application Reporting, Monitoring, Control,

Management

Many App Servers – one (or many) per Schema

robotschemascervaya

The target user is…• Not really a freestyle exploratory tester

working in a start-up or small product company• Testers working in:– Regulated, high-integrity, safety critical– High documentation, high accountability– Environments where testers are constrained by their

processes– Testers struggling to apply ‘trad’ methods in an

Agile, Digital, DevOps environment• Why can’t we dictate a detailed test plan for a

bot to document, analyse, visualise?


Bot Schema – State Model+

Slide 24Intelligent Definition and Assurance

Simplified Schema


Session

Notes

Observation

Navigation

Modelling

Home

Always start here – ready to commence the

sessionIn session – everything is done inside a session

Places, features, forms and fields comprise the

model

Notes and observations are related to places,

features, forms or fields

Notes can be ideas, concerns, risks, questions etc.

Test

Tests focus on forms and fields (but also end-to-

end scenarios)

Demo

A partial prototype

The location hierarchy• Explorers create maps (or should do)• The system map is a hierarchy of

locations as follows:• Application– Places

• Features– Forms

» Fields• All other content is located with respect

to some level in this hierarchy.Intelligent Definition and Assurance Slide 27

Demo agenda• Cervaya– apps, versions and charters

• Speechbot• Thinkbot• Cervaya– Explorer– Session Status/Log– Creating and running tests– Viewing the model

• D3 and system maps/data visualisations.

A New Test Process

Exploration support• Frustration:

– testers are unimaginative, working by-rote– constant pressure to cut costs

• Productivity of exploratory test approaches is proven• Testers want to explore, but the need for control and

documentation constrains them• Testers needs tools that can capture plans and tester

activity in real-time• The next generation will be led by tools that support

the exploration of sources of knowledge.• These tools might use a “Surveying” metaphor.


Staged ProcessSystem Testing Re-Test

Big, up-front Test Planning

RegressionTestDevelopment

Automation

From Staged to Continuous

Scoping exploration sessions

Interactive Testing Sessions

Clarifications

Continuous Integration

ChangesRefinements

Continuous Dev, Test and Delivery

Test Process• Cervaya can be used to create test plans– Initially based on documentation– Evolving plan based on chartered sessions

• Testing in the small – chartered testing• Testing in the large – Cervaya has the

building blocks for end to end tests• Could it generate the documentation

required in regulated industries? Why not?


Real-Time test management• The activity of the test team can be

seen in real-time• Testers can see each other’s activity

and liaise when necessary• Developers can also see progress

and requests for more information very quickly– E.g. selected queries, test failures could

be posted to Slack.Intelligent Definition and Assurance Slide 33

From Staged to Continuous Testing• In Waterfall projects, tests work in stages

– Hi- then low-level test plan, test procedures, execution, re-testing, regression-testing

• If testers are shifted left (into the development teams) they can:– Model features, forms as they are created by the developers– The test plan at a low level emerges and is accurate as it

iterates over time– Longer/end to end tests – not yet available but will be soon

• Tests and test run histories are manages against versions (and platforms/environments soon)

• The aim is to export tests as soon as practical to be automated and provide a feedback mechanism from tools.


The best of both worlds?“Structured/Waterfall/ Staged” Testing• Systematic• Transparent,

Documented• Reviewable• Auditable• Repeatable,

measurable• Automatable

“Exploratory” Testing

• Agile (with a small ‘a’)• Improvised,

imaginative• Flexible and

responsive to change• Faster, cheaper• More effective• Personally enjoyable


I’m looking for Collaboration

Want to know more?Email

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Q & maybe some A

A new test process?• The “tester as surveyor” affects the

relationship of testing to development• A new style of testing process emerges:

– No more documentation created in a knowledge vacuum

– Iterative, incremental knowledge acquisition and capture process closely aligned with the delivery of features

• Could this be an Agile test process at last?• At least: it fits the increasingly popular Continuous

Delivery, DevOps development approaches.


System Surveying• A System Survey incorporates features, and captures

the architecture of the system from a user perspective– Testers pair with developers and survey features– The knowledge required to build systems emerges over time– So does the design of the system– So should the models and documentation produced by

testers• Surveys that evolve the System Model/Map are shared• The basis of component and system tests is the System

Model itself• No need for extensive scripts or test procedures!• The information required for scripting is in the model.


A process that suits automation• Test process comprises a sequence of parallel actions

– Sequence: survey, model refinement then testing– Parallel: small subsets of functionality selected for surveys– These processes are both iterative and incremental as

learning proceeds• Scalable: if you survey it, you can test it• Automate: What you can survey and test, you can

probably automate• “Humans make the early maps; tools will follow

the trails we make.”• We don’t need Machine Learning to do this:

– Simple tools make suggestions that better inform and enrich exploration and testing.


All exploration and testing is driven by charters• Charters represent the low-level

plans for all sessions• Charters can be reused for multiple

sessions, if required


Services• Can Cervaya handle web services as

objects to test?• In principle yes – use your

imagination:–Map the form/field information to

service/fields– Service tests map directly to form tests

• But we need to create an option that doesn’t require you to use your imagination.Intelligent Definition and Assurance Slide 42

Sessions and logging• Sessions can be as short or as long

as you like• Testers typically work in 60-120

minute bursts – 90 minutes is typical• Every action in a session is logged

against the session (locations selected, created, notes taken, test created and run)

• The activity of all testers is logged and can be scrutinised for audit purposes.


Running a Test• When you run a test

– You are presented with the test details (navigation, input values and expected outcomes)

– You can log a test status, outcomes if different from expected and an interpretation

– You can also log a screen shot or other file• The test run log record the detail above and tags

the run with the app version/build defined in the charter

• You can (if required) run the same test multiple times in the same session and against the same version.


Challenges, opportunities• Is it feasible to

generate a high or low level test plan from Surveyor?

• Environments/platforms

• Integrations– Chatbot – Slack etc.– Internal IM– Stories– Test automation a la

BDD – both ways

• Visualisations– Coverage– Reporting– Impact analysis

• Other benefits– Instant replays– Heat map, floor plan– Tester paths– Real time notifications– Real time test(er)

management


New Model Testing:A New Test Process and Tool

@paul_gerrardPaul [email protected]

gerrardconsulting.comSlide 46Intelligent Definition and Assurance

Software

New Model Testing: A New Test Process and Tool