- The value of any practice depends on its context.
- There are good practices in context, but there are no best practices.
- People, working together, are the most important part of any project’s context.
- Projects unfold over time in ways that are often not predictable.
- The product is a solution. If the problem isn’t solved, the product doesn’t work.
- Good software testing is a challenging intellectual process.
- Only through judgment and skill, exercised cooperatively throughout the entire project, are we able to do the right things at the right times to effectively test our products
Friday, June 20, 2014
Context is Decisive
“A best practice is always a best practice; Except when it's not.”
I have recently been involved in a contract that has forced me to really really look at testing practices and how I explain testing practices.
This particular department of a very large company gives lip service and action to a lot of "Best Practices" in the world of development and testing. SCRUMs, TDD, BDD, etc. are all the words you see floating around in the air there. They are saying all the right things, and even taking many good actions, and the end result is almost worse than if they took no actions at all.
It is, in my world the best illustration of a very basic principle, context is decisive. Another way of saying that is that a best practice is always a best practice, except when it's not.
To illustrate the point:
In the context of body part the above is a Finger
In the context of number the above is One
Same picture, different interpretation.
This is particularly notable when you start talking about using "Best Practices" out of context.
When I was starting out as a software engineer I worked for an Foliage Software Systems. They had a significantly higher than average success rate with projects and a higher than average satisfaction level of their customers. One of the things that Foliage did that made a difference was that they had a playbook of processes. So they would have a preliminary engagement with the customer where the lead on the project would discover what kind of existing coding and communication processes they already had in place and use the playbook to select the Foliage development and communication processes to fit with what the customer was doing. This came about because they discovered early on that merely producing a technically successful project was not enough to produce a satisfied client. If the development process was not understandable by or compatible with the client they could have an unsatisfied client. The communication process was not understandable by or compatible with the client, they could have an unsatisfied client. And they worked on FAA and FDA certified projects as well as many, less stringent, markets.
By choosing the process to match the context they ended up with a higher number of successful projects.
As far as I can tell the majority of the TDD is Dead discussion comes down to, if you use the TDD methodology out of context, it gets messy and doesn't deliver on what you need. I completely agree.
I use TDD a lot. It allows me to shake out the design of the individual modules at a low level and alerts me to the impact of re-factoring. I don't test getters and setters. I don't test methods that just delegate to another method. I don't write code for functionality that isn't tested. And I don't forget that the unit test provides me with a minimal contract regarding the usability of the module. For me the context of TDD is to answer some key questions such as "Does this module meet some minimum robustness requirement?", "Do I know how I'm going to use this module?" , "Did I break anything when I re-factored the classes?". So I use TDD to drive the design and implementation of the individual modules and leave me with a test that documents some ways to use the module, specifies the core functionality of the module, and acts as a tripwire for detecting the impact of re-factoring. In that context, TDD is quite successful.
When I was doing research I came across a website describing the school of thought called Context Driven Testing. You may or may not agree with all of the discussions on the webpage. But the heart of it in the basic principles is one of the clearest statements around best practices that I've ever see.
The Basic Principles of Context-Driven Testing
In the next entry I will discuss what questions to ask to determine what to test, and what to automate.