Test automation purpose and trade-offs

Today, I like to write about misconception and purpose of test automation.

Now days, test engineers' programming capability is crucial in the software industry. I guess there is already an occupation like a Test Architect. And considering scale of the project, we cannot test applications without test automation. I guess I can safely say that test engineers' programming skill are better than like 5-6 years ago.

What is concerning to me is that as test engineers writing more codes, some of them are loosing focus. Test engineers understands design patterns, code quality, OOP concepts etc. I think that is very good thing happened in our test community. However, I really want to say that test automation framework code is not the same as production code. Test automation framework exist to "TEST" applications.

Here are some trade-off for test automation

• Simpleness over performance: One of the biggest difference between test automation code and production code is that there is a team to test production code while there is no other team to test test automation code. So then, we, test engineers, are responsible for testing our test automation framework as well. There are two things we can do about this: unit testing and simple design. You can read a lot about unit testing by searching online. I want to focus one simple design. Simple can be pretty relative term, but I like to define simple as many separate helpers doing one thing. I also want to define simple as avoiding a long chain of dependencies or deep hierarchy. Simple also can mean you do not spend too much time on debugging. Simple means no multiple nested if statements as well. So your test framework will consist of test procedure codes and bunch of small helpers. So you can easily find where the test failed and why the test failed. The usage of many small helpers will not be very efficient or fast. However, this simplicity reduces time for debugging and time for fixing test code bug.

• Readability over duplicate code: Everyone knows that duplicate codes are bad. No one goes against avoiding duplicate code. We also believe that refactoring is virtuous thing in software development. Why duplicate codes are bad? Yes, of course, if you have the same logic of codes written in many places in the application, it will be hell to find all the usage and update them. That's why we want to refactor them and change the codes in one place. I think avoiding duplicate codes principle applies also when we are writing test helper classes. Now, let's closely look at test procedure codes. In one TestCase class, there are several test methods representing testcase1-1, testcase1-2 and testcase1-3. Let's say, each test case differs in inputs. Then codes for input are different, but rest of the codes are pretty much identical. I can see the duplicate codes in three methods. Again, we need to be very careful about refactoring these duplicate codes. Each test method contains test procedure codes, which shows steps to be taken(code-wise) to verify failure or success of that specific use(test) case. This steps should not be over refactored. Refactoring means one more stack trace to debug. And also hides some steps from each test method(since it will be refactored to somewhare outside of the method). Let's not refactor code for the sake of refactoring. 6 months later, it will really hard for you to figure out what you did. And, it will be even harder for other testers to read your test case or add new test case.

Mix and match over inheritance for test automation

Today, I like to talk about test automation design.

First, I like to ask you, test engineers. How much effort does project team put on test automation design? Project team meaning Dev,Test,PM and even architect. Here is a similar question. How much effort does project team put on dev design and code review vs test automation design and test code review? Does your company architect spend time on test automation design?

Is it too obvious question? I think the project team should focus more on dev design and implementation because that is what eventually the company deliver to the customers.

What I'm trying to say here is that since the focus is on dev side, testing side design and implementation tend to be sole responsibility of test engineers. Therefore, you and I, test engineers, should be able to come up with robust and reliable test automation. Which means design of test automation should be well thought through.

Let me cut the intro part here and get to the point. The test automation design.

1. Test Runner. What is the responsibility of test runner? Java world JUnit or TestNG in .Net world NUnit. I believe test runner should be responsible for running tests and only running. Test runner by itself should not have functionality other than executing your test code. I've seen many cases where the test runner extends several crafted base classes. I'm not trying to reference the book like "Gang of 4 design pattern" says that favour composition over inheritance. (It's a great book by the way. And you probably read that several times already). Just simply look at how much flexibility we are loosing by inheriting other base class. Before inheriting the base class, test runner was like "I can run anything!" After inheriting base class, it is like "I'm specialized in running xxx tests". As the project grow, your test runner becomes more and more specialized in running xxx tests.

2. Power of mix and match. I think we can take out commonly used functionality in base classes and put them in feature specific common folder. As the project grow, you will have more classes to put in common folder. But test runner will still like "I can run anything!" We, test engineers, can use any class that makes sense for running test cases. If we find more generic class in feature specific common folder, we can move them up to project level common folder.

3. never say "never/always". When you prepare test automation, try not to convince yourself by saying when I run tests "yyy" will always have to run. You can put "yyy" in setup method in test runner. And "yyy" can be changed and "yyy" may not be used 6 months from now.

Things to consider for a good test automation

1. Keep the linear dependencies.

• This is not only for test framework but also development code as well. Code changes are inevitable, linear dependencies help minimize the side effect of code changes. Loop dependencies cause development hell. Here is a good lecture about why loop dependencies lead slow down the project. Link
  

2. Make robust and simple backbone of test framework strategy.

• This is pretty obvious statement I guess. The thing that I want to point out is that we need to sit down and think about framework design before starting to write test code. How test runner will interact with application and how test runner will prepare test data need to be thought through and determined. As we draw the overall design of the framework, we can see the dependencies and think about possible design patterns or strategy we cam apply.
  

3. Use object for multiple test data values.

• This is more like a tip. If test data is being passed throughout the tests and it contains several values (id, name, data etc.), encapsulate test data by using an object. This will help add and remove test data details easily and overwriting toString() method help you log your test data
  

4. Find proper category of test cases as you go

• This is from my personal experience. This might be not a problem for others. Normally you will have test suites and test cases. And test suites contains list of related test cases. Test case is normally one class(java, cs , etc) And you name the class (i.e. LoginPageTests.java or something). As you implement the test cases and as you add more test cases, you will find more specific test cases under that test case class. Let say for LoginPageTest.java you find javascript related test cases and non-java script related cases(this is just an example). What I did was creating a new class called LoginPageJavascriptTest.java. Since LoginPageTest.java was in version control for a while and I did not want to rename them for some other reasons. So my LoginPageTest.java is non-javascript test cases. This is not very cohesive class name for its purpose. The proper name would be LoginPageNonJavascriptTest.java. What I'm trying to say here is that as soon as you realize that non-cohesive name, step back and think about what is proper category for your class. What would be the more appropriate category for test suites and test cases. DO NOT STUCK with your class name you created 4 weeks ago. Be flexible of naming.
  

5. Re-factor implementation logic not test case steps.

• This is pretty challenging part for myself as well. I can see the duplicate code and have strong urge to re-factor them. This is mainly for readability. Your code is owned by your company and other test engineers will see or work with your code. Normally one test case has steps like set up, test procedures, assertion and clean up. I guess set-up and tear down(clean up) can be refactored. But if you refactor test procedures and assertion part, it will be hard for others to follow your steps or even harder for finding flaws in your test procedures.
  

6. Use helper method instead of hard-coded value

Test Engineer Value

Today I like to write about the role of test engineers in software industry and value they are bringing to the software development process.

First, let me ask, what kind of value does a test engineer bring to a software company? Why software company needs test engineers for their projects? I guess the role of test engineers has been changed along with evolution of software industry. Normally people say test engineers are responsible for the quality of the product, and I believe that statement.

Do we need test engineers because developers are not perfect and they make mistakes? I think that is part of the test engineers' role. I guess we had time like that. Old days, we called developers "programmers" and they are responsible for 70 to 80% of the software development work. At the end of the project, "testers" are basically verifying their work. And there were a lot of 'hot fixes' after that. The industry has found a lot of problems about that approach in terms of cost, development pace or even success of the project.

Now, we know that test engineers are required to do more than verifying software based on spec or trying different inputs from end to end testing. I think the core requirements for test engineers are clear understanding of functionality and business value of the software, good knowledge of risk and vulnerabilities of the context of the software and strong capability of test case execution.

It sounds pretty obvious, but let's go over one by one.

Clear understanding of functionality and business value of the software

This involves with test engineers participating on spec reviews and designing of architecture of the software. Test engineers represents the end user but that is not all about test engineers. Test engineers are internal people of the software. They need to understand the architecture of the software and the interactions among components. If you join a new company and want to test, first thing you need to do would be understanding the architecture and components of the software. After that, they need to think about business value of the software. We need to be able to look at software from business perspective. Now, we know the software inside and out. We understand how the software works and how it is used.

Good knowledge of risk and vulnerabilities of the context of the software

This has a lot to do with your expertise or experience. Every software is different. I think understanding of vulnerabilities of the software you are testing is really a crucial part of your job as a test engineer. What is the risk of developing client application? What is the risk of developing web/network application? What is the risk of developing mobile application? (My plan for next blogs is focusing on risk and vulnerabilities of different context of software.) Test engineers can execute a lot of test cases on a software, but it is hard to evaluate what they are doing is exactly what software testing needed for that particular context. Software quality comes from extensive testing on risky and vulnerable part of the software. Understanding of the context of the software is worth emphasizing.

Strong capability of test case execution

This is pretty personal matters. Software development business or any kind of business has time and budget constraints. If your organization has enough resources and can afford them, that would be great. I'm trying not to talk about details of manual testing and test automation. Good test engineers need to come up with best method to execute the test cases. Some test engineers are obsessed with test automation. Some test engineers are not bothering to consider automation. We need to be able to choose best method for executing test cases and should be able to handle them. If you are not good at test automation, go back to library and study it. Understand code quality and maintainability of the software. Study about design patterns and best practices. If you think you are obsessed with automation, sit back and think about how can you use intelligent human brains and senses. There are absolutely many places where manual testing work better than automation. I remember Jame Whittaker at Google mentioning 'User experience code and infrastructure code.' Basically, manual testing is better fit for sophisticated user experience code testing. And test automation is better fit for internal of the software. I agree with his point. But in practice we cannot separate them strictly I guess. But spend some time think about which method would be better for a particular test execution rather than going with your favorite method.

Women in Software Testing

This is a bit strange, but I want to write something I find interesting. I have not work for many different companies, but each of my test team manager was a woman. And I've seen many women speakers who talked about software testing in seminars and conferences. I do not have scientific evidence about it, but I feel that women are pretty strong in software testing field.

Why do I feel that way?

I want to talk about gut feeling or six sense part of the software testing. This might has a lot to do with experience. Have you experience something like worries or uncomfortable feeling while you are reading a spec. Not that the spec is poorly written, but you get some feeling just by looking at the spec. Or while you are testing something, do you get some kind feeling that this is not going to work? This might be a little different from the smells of the code that software development engineers calls when they see others' code.

Here is my experience. Marketing team come up with really good plan for our users. We are going to send customized progress report based on user activities on our site. PM come up with nice spec about the benefits and plan for this. The very first question I got from our lady test engineer: "There are about ten millions of users and more than ten million activities. We need to join massive size of tables to generate info for customized email. What's our plan for that?"

Here is another experience. I asked my wife who is a senior civil engineer. I asked her, "How would you test soda vending machine? What are the things you want to make sure to sell soda vending machines?" Her first answer; I'll check to make sure the temperature soda machine keeps certain degree. I don't like warm soda.

People say men tend to be logical and women tends to be emotional. I think we need both in our software testing. Man-only testing team is not as good as men and women team. Maybe it is not about gender. I get different ideas from different guy test engineers. This is one of the reason why our team does test case reviews. Just like developers do code reviews. We like to hear other people's perspectives. And I remember reading interesting James Whittaker's blog post: test engineer types. Let me find that link. Here

I am admitting that I'm using pretty logical approach to test applications. Software testing is also a creative thinking process. Should I develop my creative emotional thinking part or just depend that part on our women test engineers?

Bye.