exampler.com/testing-com > Agile Testing > Agile Testing Essay [an error occurred while processing this directive]
Brian Marick, email@example.com
(This essay is a modified version of one that appeared in Volume 3, Number 5, of STQE Magazine.)
In February 2001, I participated in a convocation of people who've created or work on "Agile Methods". The most well known of these is eXtreme Programming (XP). Others are Adaptive Software Development, Crystal, Dynamic Systems Development Method, Feature Driven Development, Scrum, and XBreed. Our goal was to find what the different methods had in common. One result was a Manifesto for Agile Software Development. Here is its statement of values:
We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. We value:
Individuals and interactions
over processes and
Working software over comprehensive documentation
Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
Responding to change over following a plan.
That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more.
For me, two key imperatives underlie these values. In this essay, I'll explain them, then consider how they might guide a practice of "Agile Testing".
In his fine book, Hackers, Steven Levy describes the Hands-On Imperative. It says to get your hands on the computer and make it do something. Programmers are often in the grip of the Hands-On Imperative; that's why they don't like to write documentation. Agile Methods accept the Hands-On Imperative, but extend it to the users.
Why? Reinhard Keil-Slawik puts it this way: "... thinking does not take place inside our heads... Most of our mental activities need external resources." Different resources lead to different ways of thinking. Someone who adds with an abacus thinks differently about addition than does someone who uses the Indian decimal numbering system and a pencil and paper. And a user asked to evaluate an abstraction like a requirements document or a design model thinks profoundly differently than one presented with working software.
As Reinhard Budde and Heinz Züllighoven write, "When we formalize, we explain how an object functions; when we work purposively with a thing, we understand what it means." So when we sit a user down in front of the screen for the first time, her reaction - "Wow... this is not what I expected" - doesn't represent any sort of failure. It's not that we didn't do a good job "capturing" requirements, or that the reviews weren't planned carefully enough, or that the user wasn't properly trained in our modeling notation, or anything like that. Abstractions simply mean differently than working software.
Because Agile projects understand that, they deliver working software (or perhaps executable prototypes) as quickly as possible and as frequently as practical. Development is organized into a rapid series of functionally complete releases, each one made available for the user to try. Since each such release is really the first chance the user's had to think about the new features, rework is just part of the job, not a crisis.
With less documentation, how do Agile projects keep everyone in synch? With an imperative toward human contact - face-to-face conversation and collaboration. XP has people program in pairs and tries hard to have a customer representative working every day in the same bullpen as the developers. One of Scrum's practices is carefully crafted daily standup meetings that create and preserve group understanding. Crystal, perhaps the least dogmatic process conceivable, nevertheless insists on frequent retrospectives. These techniques foster the communication that documents cannot replace.
All Agile methods want a customer to be part of the team. With a suitable customer representative at hand, you don't need a detailed requirements document. When you have a question, you turn around and ask. Worried that you won't know to ask the right question? Implement something and show it to the customer for a quick reaction - you'll quickly learn if you're going off track.
In an Agile project, conversation is carefully designed to avoid a lot of idle chatter. Talk will be pragmatic, concentrating on some object of work. But there'll be a background of tacit understanding of the fundamentals, so that different people will reflexively make consistent choices when confronted with similar problems.
These same imperatives can underlie a practice of Agile Testing. Agile Testing would most obviously apply to Agile development projects, but it should work - perhaps less well - on conventional projects too.
The first step is to abandon the notion that others communicate at us with requirements and design documents, and that we communicate back at them with test plans and bug reports. We've always realized that the documents we base our tests on are flawed - incomplete, incorrect, and ambiguous - but our reaction has been to insist, in our usually powerless way, that the document producers do better. But now we can see that "better" will never be good enough. Documents can't be an adequate representation of working code. So we can let free of the illusion that documents will save us. We can view them as they are: interesting texts, partly fictional, often useful.
Rather than communicating at people, we need to join and encourage the ongoing project conversation. Testers and developers should sit in the same bullpen, share offices, or occupy alternate cubicles. Many testers should be assigned to help particular developers, rather than to test pieces of the product. The test plan should evolve through a series of what James Bach calls "drop-in meetings" - short, low-preparation, informal discussions of particular topics. These will result in what James Tierney calls "test doclets" - short memos addressing a specific issue. Test status should be reported via big, public, simple-to-read charts that answer specific development questions like "what parts of the product can we stop worrying about?"
Conversation with the customer is as important as with the developers. Remember: the customer is trying to figure out what they need, want, and are getting, in large part by trying out the working code. Testers should sit down with them as they do that. Creating some tests together is an excellent way for both of you to learn what matters - and also to describe it to the developers in a clear and concrete way.
That's an instance of the Hands-On Imperative. Exploit that with developers as well. The normally strained relationship with them will be less so if they see you wanting to get started testing, even on something unfinished, especially if your expressed goal is to help them improve and complete it. They'll value tests they can run as they continue development.
Agile Testing is not the answer for all projects. Neither is any of the Agile Methods named in the first paragraph. No single approach can be. But now is a time when we need more experimentation with project styles, the more so because there's an increasing move toward standardization of software development practices, a move that in my opinion is entirely premature.
The quotes are from Software Development and Reality Construction, ed. Floyd, Züllighoven, Budde, Keil-Slawik. The first is from the chapter "Artifacts in Software Design", the second from "Software Tools in a Programming Workshop".