filfreire user image

Asymmetric warfare, raids, and software testing

Raid-ST, testing, and quality
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered, 2016

Disclaimer: I found out after writing and sharing the draft for this post with Michael Bolton and James Bach, that James already “beat me to it” almost 5 years ago, with regards to most of the underlying ideas of this post, with a whole different analogy, Test-Jumpers: One Vision of Agile Testing. It’s an interesting read and I personally like his analogy better, so read on knowing that the ideas, or foundations, for this post are not new, and at the end, I basically committed a bit the feat of “re-inventing the wheel” here, without having previously known of its existence.

“The world is in great shape (…)” – Gaz from COD4

Everything needs to be incredibly faster every day. Decades have passed and the difference between quality control, quality assurance, and testing is still a whisper in the wind. The world is set on hiring people to magically assure quality (whatever that is). Terms like “automated testing” (isn’t it checking?) gain traction. The powers of testing entities differ greatly from challenges proposed in projects, calling for some Asymmetric warfare-style of approach to testing.

The problem(s)

The industry is hungry for testers. Likewise, it’s hungry for testers who can deal with monstrous projects. They want them in every “shape and size”, most of the times with the same (vague) profile descriptions: “we need someone who can write test cases”; “we need someone who can use a ticketing-system and a test case-management tool”; “we need someone who likes breaking stuff” (* cough * isn’t the stuff we test already broken?); “we need someone who can automate tests in language X”; “we need someone who knows everything about test framework Y”; …

Any tester, after successfully passing through the typical checklist, will (maybe) set up against:

In all projects though, in good or rough shape, there’s usually a prevalent point of contact for most testers: Asymmetry.

A landscape of Asymmetric Warfare

There’s always some “big monster challenge” and the “testers are so small” and “budget is to tight for more testers”. Better yet, maybe tons of developers are churning out tons of code for the same project. And to add to the cake, all of this code in under a spell of no rigor, no unit checks no code quality, stopper bugs being found all the time. Codebases built on dress-the-shirt-long-nighters by cowboys with nothing but spit and “NASA-duct-tape”, conveniently and easily deployed in the cloud for a modest price (money… and some dignity). Cool and hip slopiness reign.

And what are some of the most common ideas to top the sloppiness?

  1. “Let’s create tons of test cases”;
  2. “Let’s create a big and costly, easily outdated, and hard to maintain automated check suite”;
Sure, let's follow this approach... (image from Borat, 2006)

There’s much to be said about what I’ve just written above. But stop and think for a minute. What kind of tester do these projects really need? Under what context (if any) do the ideas above work to magically solve inherent project problems and overall sloppiness in the process? I leave that for the reader to meditate on.

But for a moment, let’s say we’re faced against a big monster project from the required testing efforts point of view. In that case, one of the main problems we face is we won’t be able to top up the monster: if we follow the common ideas (test cases and blind automation), then there are not enough testers in the market available at this very instant. We’ll soon figure out it’s not humanly possible. Not in all the modern pseudo-“Agile” environments.

And if there are testers available (for example, via testing sweatshops), it’s a big risk: it’s like a cavalry made up of (possibly good or possibly bad) mercenaries that are set up to be called late and to arrive late. And that “cavalry” has little internal/domain knowledge or motivation to acquire it. They’ll just “get paid, run through the battlefield and hit what’s in front of them”.

With this approach, what we have at the end is always a big asymmetry. The trick is you don’t fight asymmetric conditions using “standard” tactics. You fight it with a resource to asymmetric warfare tactics. So…

Introducing “Raid Software Testing”

Yes, it’s not a typo, I didn’t mean Rapid Software Testing (RST). I’m nicknaming it Raid-ST. It’s inspired by RST, but it does NOT aim to be any sort of substitute to it methodology-wise. Both can work at the same time, and at best, Raid-ST it kind of a guerrilla-branch of it born from being exposed to the ideas of RST.

There are only 3 main points, in “The Manual of Raid-ST”:

  1. Context-wise, you need to have a monster of a project (discussed above);
  2. You need to gather skilled Tester-Commandos (who can do the right amount of skilled improvising on the job);
  3. Tester-Commandos are deployed to perform Raids (quickly coordinated “airborne” testing efforts effective to a certain degree against all kinds of testing challenges (targets), or quality assurance and control deficiencies).

The concept of Tester-Commando:

Skilled Tester-commandos are testers who:

Ideally, we’re talking about testers who can easily tag-team with developers or managers to unblock any kind of situations (from coding to management to process), but that can also, in fact, perform great testing.

Easier said than done. But indeed I’ve noticed a pattern everywhere I go: testers are always at some level in the “Commando” scale, with different strengths and weaknesses, which directly impacts their performance in the projects they work with (depending on the context of the projects).

I feel from experience that Tester-Commandos are more appropriate for a certain kind of “monster projects”, especially at a stage where testing efforts, quality processes and even development processes in those projects are very poor. So the idea is that these come in, introduce some meaningful short-term changes, and after that, you can call the “cavalry” of other profiles of expert testers to really make a deep and impactful long-term change in testing.

The concept of Raids:

A Raid is a unique testing mission (or some other kind of mission related to quality) that is smaller in scope than a test plan, but powerful in achieving a single purpose. For example, if the mission is testing-related, a Raid can be one or more testing sessions with a specific group of testing charters to fulfill. Multiple Raids can be performed at the same time.

Raids are a tactic to debilitate deficient projects, to give head-room for the proper “cavalry”, like a group of dedicated craftsman testers, to better interact with a product. Raids are best performed by a certain profile of tester, what I call a Tester-commando, which is a T-shaped craftsman tester (like an omega tester), but that can also do efficiently part of the job of a developer, a manager, a quality assurance group, and communicate effectively with these.

Raids are not long-term test plans. They’re also not set to be ineffective: a minimum effort has to return at the very least some value to the project.

Here are some examples of the possible purposes of raids:

Here are some other possible purposes, not directly related to testing, but that a Tester-Commando should be able to do:

All of this can be done in separate or with some mixture. Expert testers will say I’m taking a road of potential “blasphemy”, and that I might be riding a dangerous train of thought of mixing Quality Assurance, Quality Control, and Testing Craftsmanship, acting as a “counter-revolution” voice in the dialog between the factory school of testing and the context-driven school of testing. I admit it appears to look like a mixture, but with the intent to be a purposeful and heterogeneous one.

The idea of Raid-ST is not to be a unique flagship of testing expertise, but rather facilitate the introduction, “later in the war”, of expert testing, while ALSO contributing towards decent quality assurance and quality control processes (which may also facilitate expert testing efforts). In other words, it’s like a first layer of “violent hygiene”: the main premise is to debilitate “the monster” in a methodical yet “portable”/easy to deploy way, so that, for example, later efforts can be made into having even better testing happening in the project.

A visual representation of Raid-ST

Eating my own dog food

I’ve been asked on several occasions to jump inside a project, help out and improve testing efforts and quality processes, then called to move to the next more-complex project that needs help and fixing, and so on.

Much like a commando that is pin-placed in the hardest parts of the world for a very limited amount of time with a clear set of objectives, once those are done: time to evac back to base, catch a small amount of rest, and off again to a new mission.

Because I have to be on the move, and I can’t be in all places at the same time or clone myself, I usually have to make a lot of bang with the few instruments I have at hand.

Between critical projects there’s only so much “instruments” I can carry with me:

I also always leave behind certain beacons, or “care” packages, in case I ever need to get back to the same place:

And finally, in every project, I always attempt to start (and finish) Raids (typical purposes are the ones listed above), here are some examples:

Summing up

Reality check: Not all Raids succeed, even if they still produce a bit of “damage” to the monster. Sometimes they end-up badly for the operator too, so I underline the importance of adapting the right raids to the appropriate context. When the Raids fail, a tester-commando can and should quickly try other raids.

I’m personally far from being a flawless example of tester-commando, much less of a real-life commando. I tried though to put into words and explain my personal methodology, which anyone who knows me in real life also knows I fall short of. I’m a flawed human being, and that’s ok.

If I convinced you or gave you some ideas with Raid-ST, awesome. Come back later for more adventures on Raid-ST 🙂

Far from trying to convince anyone to adopt Raid-ST, which to me personally sounds a bit silly, I do make this invitation: Recognizing your own personal methodology, studying it, and trying to improve it on a daily basis can take you far, and definitely is a force applied in a daily pursuit of paths less-traveled. It’s worth it. Taking into account that this sort of ideas has been looked at years before for example with the concept of Test-Jumpers, Raid-ST is also not entirely original on its own, but it’s my flavor for the similar set of ideas that guide the previously set concept.

As a motivational outro, if there’s one thing I’d like you, the reader, to take from all of this is: try a bit harder, and think, and do something with discipline. Your mind is free. If I managed to write all of this down, I can’t imagine what ideas some brighter minds are on the brink of putting into words, but need that spark. Here’s a spark for you.