Yet more Monty Python & Software Testing

I drift in and out of Monty Python analogies for Software Testing now and then. Here's a previous reference <link>.

Whilst falling asleep the other night I remembered a Phil Kirkham post about Monty Python and my comment on it, so I thought I'd indulge myself and do a little bit of Monty Python - Software Testing analogising(?) - just for therapy :)

Here's the "Life of Brian" based comment I made:

Coordinator: Crucifixion? 

Prisoner: Yes. 

Coordinator: Good. Out of the door, line on the left, one cross each. 

[Next prisoner] 

Coordinator: Crucifixion? 

Mr. Cheeky: Er, no, freedom actually. 

Coordinator: What? 

Mr. Cheeky: Yeah, they said I hadn't done anything and I could go and live on an island somewhere. 

Coordinator: Oh I say, that's very nice. Well, off you go then. 

Mr. Cheeky: No, I'm just pulling your leg, it's crucifixion really. 

Coordinator: [laughing] Oh yes, very good. Well... 

Mr. Cheeky: Yes I know, out of the door, one cross each, line on the left. 

Or, as applied to testing...

Coordinator: Scripted test?

Tester: Yes

Coord: Good. Other there on the shelf, one scripted test case each.

[Next Tester]

Coordinator: Scripted test?

Tester: Er, no, an exploratory approach please.

Coord: What?

Tester: Yes, they said I could come and do some testing with my eyes open.

Coord: Oh, I say, that's sounds very nice. Well, off you go then.

Tester: No, I'm just joking my PM gets scared if we don't follow the script.

Coord: Oh, well in that case...

Tester: Yes I know, over there, one scripted test case each.

Life of Brian is a rich source:

Spectator I: I think it was "Blessed are the cheesemakers". 

Mrs. Gregory: Aha, what's so special about the cheesemakers? 

Gregory: Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

Or, as applied to testing...

Tester I: I think it was "Blessed are the certified".

Tester II: What's so special about the certified?

Tester III: Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any arbitrary label or categorisation.

There's lots of potential in the Meaning of Life too:

Three Project Managers (PM) and a management consultant (MC) discuss the state of affairs:

PM#1: Ah! Morning Perkins.

PM#2: Morning.

PM#1: What's all the trouble then?

PM#2: Test reports in disarray. During the night.

PM#1: Hm. Not nice numbers eh?

PM#2: Yes.

PM#1: How's it feel?

PM#2: Stings a bit.

PM#1: Mmm. Well it would, wouldn't it. That's quite a lot of extra information you've got there you know.

PM#1: Yes, real beauty isn't it?

All: Yes.

PM#1: Any idea how it happened?

PM#2: None at all. Complete mystery to me. Woke up just now... one piece of detailed analysis too many.

:

PM#1: Hallo Doc.

MC: Morning. I came as fast as I could. Is something up?

PM#1: Yes, during the night old Perkins (PM#2) had his test progress reports disrupted.

:

MC: Any headache, bowels all right? Well, let's have a look at this test report of yours then. [Looks at sheet] Yes... yes... yes... yes... yes... yes... well, this is nothing to worry about.

PM#2: Oh good.

MC: There's a lot of it about, probably a virus, keep warm, plenty of rest, and if  you're reporting progress remember to stick to statistics.

PM#2: Oh right ho.

MC: Be as right as rain in a couple of days.

PM#2: Thanks for the reassurance, doc.

:

MC: Jolly good. Well, must be off.

PM#2: So it'll just sort itself out then, will it?

MC: Er... I think I'd better come clean with you about this... it's... um it's not a virus, I'm afraid. You see, a virus is what we doctors call very disruptive. So it could not possibly have made a positive impact on the quality of these reports. What we're looking for here is I think, and this is no more than an educated guess, I'd like to make that clear, is some multi-cellular life form the genu *bonus extertus*. What we management consultants, in fact, call a good tester.

All: A good tester...!!

:

PM#3: A good tester - on this project?

PM#1: Hm...

PM#3: A good tester on this project...?

PM#1: Ah... well he's probably escaped from a zoo.

And remember don't be complacent in testing:

A tester has been asked for his certification in testing:

Tester: "I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition." 

Certification advocate: "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the certification syllabus.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again."

I was working on the dead parrot and test tool vendors, but it got messy - so I'll stop there!

Testers from the Animal Kingdom

 #softwaretesting #fun

 Warning: Frivolity alert! If you're looking for a serious piece, please move on :-)

During the writing of my last post I wanted to use a group name for testers - a slightly loose way of referring to a group of people. My references from the animal kingdom were a herd (as in cows), a flock (sheep), a gaggle (geese) and a pack (wolves).

However, I immediately noticed that these names trigger a response (a reaction in the reader). I'm currently reading Gladwell's Blink so I'm very aware of concious & unconcious interpretations (at least just now...)

I mean, a gaggle of testers? 

What impression would that give? 

Two things spring to mind for me: either a bunch of chattery and disorganised folk or a group of Jimmy Savile look-a-likes with cigar, gold jewellry and catchphrases.

So, using the sort of subconcious bias that we have with words I thought I'd explore some animal groupings and how that might apply to testers. As with all testing, this is not exhaustive :)

• A mischief of testers (Rat): Testers who just want to break things! (Oh, I might've found a winner already...)

• An unkindness of testers (Raven): Testers who give feedback without phrasing in the 3rd person or being diplomatic... (Maybe some people transition through this...)

• A tittering of testers (Magpie): Testers who can't keep a straight face when pointing out faults to a developer (or anyone.)

• A pride of testers (Lion): Testers who flounce in thinking they own the place (is the quality police?)

• A pudding of testers (Mallard): Slightly clumsly and disorganised...

• A scourge of testers (Mosquito): Yes, they're the testers with slightly less developed people skills when it comes to feedback (feedback on a piece of paper attached to a brick if you're lucky!)

• A bloom of testers (Jellyfish): Don't know but it's positive sounding - maybe a tester before they go on maternity leave or testers on their way to a wedding (flower buttonholes.)

• A colony of testers (Badger): All sorts of connotations here - could it be an off-site grouping that is either faithfully loyal to the mother site or a grouping wanting to otherthrow the mother rule and go it alone (I've seen both in action...)

• A shiver of testers (Shark): The ruthless efficiency with which the tester circles in to localize the fault (at least seen from the perspective of a 'pudding' dev.)

• A crash of testers (Hippopotamus): Could be a combination of an unkindness and pudding of testers (maybe not a popular combination!)

• A risk of testers (Lobster): A risk-based tester?

• A marmalade of testers (Pony): A grouping of sweet, tart and pithy testers (or the ones located in the Seville office.)

• A parliament of testers (Owl & Raven): A group that is filled with a lot of talk and occasional hot air, but tries to be democratic.

• A business of testers (Ferret): They get on with the task at hand in a professional way (or spend a lot of time sleeping and are active around dusk & dawn - a la ferret.)

• An army of testers (Ant): When the tester to developer ratio is very high!

• A coffle of testers (Donkey): An easy-kept group with a tough digestive system (will tackle anything!) (I hope Lisa Crispin will correct me if I'm wrong here!)

• A wisdom of testers (Owl): The gurus or architects that you turn to now and then (or the self-proclaimed group thinking they know it all..)

• A troop or cartload of testers (Monkey): A group of testers that make the organisation tick - everything so choreographed! (Could this be a dream goal?)

• A harem of testers (Seal):  No comment...

The interesting thing is that I can relate to most of these groupings via testers I have met, worked with or observed in the past...

Credit to @shrinik & @ElizaFx for setting off this divergent thinking exercise!

Any goodies that I missed?

My Latest Metric

#softwaretesting

There has recently been a debate over metrics when applied to software testing. Stories of usage and examples have run the whole range from the good, the bad, the ugly to the incomprehensible.

Linda Wilkinson has bravely decided to start a series on metrics and her viewpoints, here. I anticipate a good discussion - if there is any negative feedback I'm sure it'll be given in a professional way - rather than just being unfriendly feedback.

My latest metric

The latest metric that I have used is the pedometer - or step counter. It shows me how many steps I have taken and total elapsed time with a conversion to distance and calories used.

But that's just raw data - I need a certain history and environment in which to interpret the data.

It doesn't tell me about the terain I was walking in.

Was it hilly - so some steps counting double for the exertion?

Was I walking fast/slow?

Was I walking fast and taking lots of breaks or did I do the whole thing in one go?

Was I carrying any baggage?

Was I pushing or pulling something?

How comfortable were my shoes?

Test Metrics

If using them, then understand the data - what it's representing, what it's an instance of and question what it's not telling you.

Know and work with examples of what might be deducable from the data.

Know and work with examples of what cannot be deduced from the data.

Know how to deal with data that's missing - sometimes nothing more than to acknowledge it - but that's an important step in itself.

Extensions?

Some would say that the answer to my pedometer problem is to get a better pedometer or ultimately some sort of human-tachometer. However, I just want a simple comparison - something that gives me some background data. It's just data until I can set it in a context with some meaning and I'm happy to do that step.

Even a super-duper-human-tachometer couldn't tell me about my motivation on a given day. The final story always needs the narrative!

Have you thought about the problems and limitations of your metrics?