The typical pairwise testing story goes like this:
1) Pairwise testing protects against pairwise bugs
2)
while dramatically reducing the number tests to perform,3)
which is especially cool because pairwise bugs represent the majority of combinatoricbugs,
4)
and such bugs are a lot more likely to happen than ones that only happen with morevariables.
5)
Plus, you no longer need to create these tests by hand.Critical thinking and empirical analysis requires us to change the story:
1) Pairwise testing
might find some pairwise bugs2)
while dramatically reducing the number tests to perform, compared to testing allcombinations, but not necessarily compared to testing just the combinations that
matter.
3)
which is especially cool because pairwise bugs might represent the majority ofcombinatoric bugs,
or might not, depending on the actual dependencies amongvariables in the product.
4)
and some such bugs are more likely to happen than ones that only happen with morevariables,
or less likely to happen, because user inputs are not randomly distributed.5)
Plus, you no longer need to create these tests by hand, except for the work of analyzingthe product, selecting variables and values, actually configuring and performing the
test, and analyzing the results.
Today I came across some questions I'd written down nearly 2 years ago. I was looking to hire someone to replace me as QE Lead . Here are the questions I came up with.
After reading the questions, I realized I only wanted to know 2 things.
1. Is this person a good, creative tester with interest and experience in this area?
2. Can this person work well enough with different types of people to be a lead?
I guess those are the top things I consider "must have" items for a QE Lead. A pretty short list. The round of interviews resulted in a good hire. The person has worked out really well in that role. They had much more than my bare bones hope that they could "do the job". I'm glad it turned out, but I've been thinking about how to incorporate questions to find out if I can get what is "ideal" for the job, not just functional.
The most hilarious thing about the person we hired is that on paper, they had the resume that annoyed me the most of any resume I'd ever seen. It did stop slightly short of saying they invented the entire Internet, but it came across as over the top. I was shocked to meet a humble and intelligent person who was anything but a bragger in person. It just goes to show you that you can't tell everything from the written word. Once I got to know the person better and they'd been on the job while, we discussed what my impression of the resume was and why I interpretted it that way. We both thought it was pretty funny and laughed about it.
So, I ask you, what do you think are important qualities for a QE Lead? What questions would you ask to find out if a candidate had those qualities?
Questions I Had Prepared
In taking a training course I got another copy of Now Discover your Strengths 1.0. This is the third book I now own. I decided to retake the test. Only 2 of my stregths remained the same over the course of this year.
Here are the new strengthfinder results:
Ideation
People strong in the Ideation theme are fascinated by ideas. They are able to find connections between seemingly disparate phenomena. ActivatorPeople strong in the Activator theme can make things happen by turning thoughts into action. They are often impatient.
Woo
People strong in the Woo theme love the challenge of meeting new people and winning them over. They derive satisfaction from breaking the ice and making a connection with another person.
Communication
People strong in the Communication theme generally find it easy to put their thoughts into words. They are good conversationalists and presenters.
Arranger
People strong in the Arranger theme can organize, but they also have a flexibility that complements this ability. They like to figure out how all of the pieces and resources can be arranged for maximum productivity.
As previously blogged, last year they were:
Connectedness
People strong in the Connectedness theme have faith in the links between all things. They believe there are few coincidences and that almost every event has a reason.
Ideation
People strong in the Ideation theme are fascinated by ideas. They are able to find connections between seemingly disparate phenomena.
Input
People strong in the Input theme have a craving to know more. Often they like to collect and archive all kinds of information.
Activator
People strong in the Activator theme can make things happen by turning thoughts into action. They are often impatient.
Empathy
People strong in the Empathy theme can sense the feelings of other people by imagining themselves in others' lives or others' situations.
So, to summarize, I don't think I've lost my empathy. I think that what has happened instead is that those softer traits have taken a back seat during a time of massive change. I need the Communication and Woo skills more right now. I don't think woo is a real strength above other things. As far as the "Arranger" part goes, that is most of what my work has been this year. I've gotten better at that through practice, but I don't think it is a core part of my personality.
As a result of taking this test again, I think I have three strengths worth looking at, not five. It is silly to think that each person should have five or focus on five. In fact, Activator and Ideation above all others are strengths that are especially dominant in me. The others will change each year I'm pretty certain.
Activator (I fit the description perfectly)
Ideation
A mixture of Empathy and Communication (I use both together, but not each alone. I call this having social skills in general).
I haven't been blogging because I'm learning to become a coder part time. I've now made a deal with my boss so that I don't go crazy (well anymore than I already am).
It looks a little something like this:
Half.day perWeek testyRedhead="coder". If testyRedhead != coder then resume testing and being <hostile
My reluctance, mistrust, and feeling that I can test better than automation can reminds me of the story of John Henry's Hammer. In this story, John Henry tries to beat a steam hammer but kills himself in the process. Ultimately, he fails to beat the industrial revolution. Is this heroism, or is he just stubborn and dead? My issues are no different. Being change resistant is unwise in the face of a steam hammer of changing industry trends.
I've been attending training. In fact, one of the best classes I've ever taken was last week. I feel 20% more comfortable with object oriented programming than before. I did quite well in the class, especially considering my lack of experience. However, it pointed out several things to me and clarified them by shedding a blinding light on several facts.
1. It isn't that I can't do it, it's just that I hate it and am not interested.
2. I like working on UIs, skinning, and overall project design and even pseudo code, but I hate writing code.
3. I'd rather get a root canal than work on any back end database code.
4. I could force myself to do this, but if it becomes a major part of my job I won't even make it one year more.
5. Each thing I learn points out the vast area that I have no knowledge of, and rather than a curious interest, it fills me with an unexpected level of dread and unhappiness.
6. My favorite part of the class was finding the bugs I found in the released software.
7. I wasn't put on the earth to be unhappy. Yes, there are things that must be done that we don't like in every job. If those things are growing and the parts you love are shrinking, much like a failing relationship, you must try to turn it around, and repair it. If you can't, you have to get out before you are no longer yourself, and become something miserable that is barely surviving life. I am hoping the "contain to 1/10th of job" compromise will take hold and will be something that works out for both parties. You can't have everything your way all of the time.
In other news, I'm hoping I don't get the "opportunity" (a.k.a. mandatory order from boss) to attend another course (a.k.a. self-impressed speech) by famed professor/author and Florida Software Testing Posse Member James A. Whittaker. The last "opportunity for learning" I had on the topic of Breaking Computer Software was the one and only training I've ever walked out of. It is the first time I've felt both insulted and horrified. I can't figure out if it was the fact that the ...<< MORE >>