Friday, September 04, 2009
Transpection and the Three Elements of Checking
James Bach and I have a thing that we do called "transpection". It's not at all new (you do it, Socrates and his interlocutors did it in Plato's dialogs, and people did it long before that and have done it ever since) but I think James' word for it is new. Transpection is an exploratory conversation aimed (or chartered) towards discussing and refining a particular idea. The word is related to inspection (in which one examines and observes something) introspection (in which one examines and observes one's mental or emotional processes) and retrospection (in which one examines the past). Transpection involves examining or observing an idea with another person.
James and I often disagree on certain ideas, but through transpection we come to sort them out and sharpen them. At first, it seemed that we disagreed on testing and checking, but through a transpection session yesterday, we came to agreement and James provided me with a set of attributes whereby we can test whether something is a test or a check.
A check, then, has three attributes:
1) It requires an observation.
2) The observation is linked to a decision rule.
3) The observation and the rule can be applied without sapience.
Next: Pass vs. Fail vs. Is There a Problem Here?
2. Transpection and the Three Elements of Checking
3. Pass vs. Fail vs. Is There a Problem Here?
4. Elements of Testing and Checking
5. Testing, Checking, and Changing the Language
6. Tests vs. Checks: The Motive for Distinguishing
7. A Tester Asks About Checking
8. Tests vs. Checks: Should We Call Test-Driven Development Something Else?
Related: James Bach on Sapience and Blowing People's Minds
James and I often disagree on certain ideas, but through transpection we come to sort them out and sharpen them. At first, it seemed that we disagreed on testing and checking, but through a transpection session yesterday, we came to agreement and James provided me with a set of attributes whereby we can test whether something is a test or a check.
A check, then, has three attributes:
1) It requires an observation.
2) The observation is linked to a decision rule.
3) The observation and the rule can be applied without sapience.
Next: Pass vs. Fail vs. Is There a Problem Here?
The Testing vs. Checking Series
1. Testing vs. Checking2. Transpection and the Three Elements of Checking
3. Pass vs. Fail vs. Is There a Problem Here?
4. Elements of Testing and Checking
5. Testing, Checking, and Changing the Language
6. Tests vs. Checks: The Motive for Distinguishing
7. A Tester Asks About Checking
8. Tests vs. Checks: Should We Call Test-Driven Development Something Else?
Related: James Bach on Sapience and Blowing People's Minds
# posted by Michael Bolton http://www.developsense.com @ Friday, September 04, 2009 
Comments:
<< Home
I think I read about transpection on James' blog sometime in the past. I've found it to be a very beneficial activity.
I wanted to chime in to see if you consider this to be a "check" or not. The last rule throws up a red flag for me, because it seems that sapience is required for some checks, but I'm sure you and James already worked that out.
Scenario: I'm reviewing test cases designed by testers. I observe that they are not specifically going to stress the system. I have a decision rule in place "If testing occurs on a piece of software then check for stress testing opportunities." It doesn't seem to me that a non-sapient entity could even make the observation, because it requires the parsing of english sentences or models or napkins. The tester could choose to communicate this information in so many different ways, so I think a human should do this checking (checking for some basic levels of coverage) using tools like SFDPOT while also doing a qualitative analysis of the test coverage.
Are the things that I sometimes "check" for not really checks in your opinion or do you think that it is possible to make those observations without sapience?
-Joe Harter
I wanted to chime in to see if you consider this to be a "check" or not. The last rule throws up a red flag for me, because it seems that sapience is required for some checks, but I'm sure you and James already worked that out.
Scenario: I'm reviewing test cases designed by testers. I observe that they are not specifically going to stress the system. I have a decision rule in place "If testing occurs on a piece of software then check for stress testing opportunities." It doesn't seem to me that a non-sapient entity could even make the observation, because it requires the parsing of english sentences or models or napkins. The tester could choose to communicate this information in so many different ways, so I think a human should do this checking (checking for some basic levels of coverage) using tools like SFDPOT while also doing a qualitative analysis of the test coverage.
Are the things that I sometimes "check" for not really checks in your opinion or do you think that it is possible to make those observations without sapience?
-Joe Harter
I wouldn't say "based on" a decision rule, but rather "linked to" as in "If I see X, do Y."
Asserts in jUnit are a perfect example of an observation (result of function call) connected to a decision rule (if fail then...)
Asserts in jUnit are a perfect example of an observation (result of function call) connected to a decision rule (if fail then...)
@joe: Yes. The design of a check is a testing activity; it requires sapience. The performance or execution of a check doesn't require sapience (by definition; if it did, it would be testing). Evaluating the result of a check is non-sapient, but ascribing meaning or significance to it, interpreting the result is again sapient, so an activity of testing. The distinction is based on this: could a machine make the decision after I had programmed it to do so? If Yes, it's a check; if No, it's a test. Another aspect: does it involve a value judgement, or is it a one-bit decision?
A check results in "pass" or "fail"; that can be a non-sapient decision. It requires a human to decide "Is this a big deal?" "Is the check, rather than the product, broken?" "Should we change the product or drop this check?" "Even though this check reports 'fail', can we still ship?" "Should we be doing any more checks or tests, or do we already know enough?"
One more thing, though. I don't want to enforce orthodoxy on speech; that way lies the ISTQB and the SWEBOK and all that. In casual conversation, it makes little difference what word you use. It's when you want to think critically about what you're up to that the distinction (and not the label) matters. "I want to check to make sure that these are good tests," is a fine thing to say, even if what you're doing is really very testerly, and far more than checkish.
@james: Yes, "linked to" is better. I've changed it above. The links are powerful enough that I'd contend that the observation is motivated by, even dominated by the decision rule. And that jUnit example is paradigmatic.
---Michael B.
A check results in "pass" or "fail"; that can be a non-sapient decision. It requires a human to decide "Is this a big deal?" "Is the check, rather than the product, broken?" "Should we change the product or drop this check?" "Even though this check reports 'fail', can we still ship?" "Should we be doing any more checks or tests, or do we already know enough?"
One more thing, though. I don't want to enforce orthodoxy on speech; that way lies the ISTQB and the SWEBOK and all that. In casual conversation, it makes little difference what word you use. It's when you want to think critically about what you're up to that the distinction (and not the label) matters. "I want to check to make sure that these are good tests," is a fine thing to say, even if what you're doing is really very testerly, and far more than checkish.
@james: Yes, "linked to" is better. I've changed it above. The links are powerful enough that I'd contend that the observation is motivated by, even dominated by the decision rule. And that jUnit example is paradigmatic.
---Michael B.
This sounds a lot like Satsang to me - I'm surprised that no indian tester has pointed this out.
Wiki has an interesting definition of what Satsang is which seems to describe in slightly different words what you are doing. Replace "indian philosophy" with "software testing" and "guru" with "expert" and you're there.
Interesting discussion, just wanted to highlight this as it was an eyeopened when I spoke to my wife (a yoga teacher) about Satsang today.
Wiki has an interesting definition of what Satsang is which seems to describe in slightly different words what you are doing. Replace "indian philosophy" with "software testing" and "guru" with "expert" and you're there.
Interesting discussion, just wanted to highlight this as it was an eyeopened when I spoke to my wife (a yoga teacher) about Satsang today.
# posted by 
: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:39:00 AM
: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:39:00 AM << Home
Post a Comment