A similar thing was/is in use at a place I worked. People made an effort to stay in the toilet for a long time (doodling on their PDA) and later claimed they were reading the work notes... :)
I've worked for a long time in the testing/QA engineering field for software (seems like every company calls it something different, and there are different expectations of each, but that just leads to my point). My point is that QA needs to have a bright line between it and development. No doubt, developers need to be good at creating good unit testing. By the same token, good QA/Testers need to be good at development.
But the two should remain separate. Go to any mature industry's engineering department, and ask how much of the release testing is done or defined by the actual development engineers. The answer will be you'll be laughed out of the office. There's good reason for this.
This is a sign of the immaturity of the software development industry. We're getting there, though. I've worked for a couple of the truly big Seattle software interests, and they are slowly getting more mature in how they deal with QA. The key is, (for as good and happy as developers doing a good job developing unit testing for their own work): SDEs are not QAEs, and the distinction should not be blurred, if you want to maintain true quality.
When I go to the john, I create the Bush cabinet, I don't worry about anything more than watching Cheney and Rice being flushed to a place they belong.
I think you may be missing a certain level of irony in your "positive comments"... You may also be missing a certain level of fibre from your diet if you are regularly on the loo long enough to read through so much...
To respond to Joe #302 You're wrong. I'm a developer in a fortune 500 company and I test everything I do. By the time it goes to Alpha test, only field anomalies break my code. So to say "SDEs are not QAEs, and the distinction should not be blurred, if you want to maintain true quality." you're, well, full of crap. Your statements should be flushed. Not everyone has poor software developers working for them. A true programmer can take the project from cradle to grave, or more aptly from napkin scribblings to deployment and not have problems. I have 3000 sites with my software for over three years and have had 2 bugs related to errors on my part. Proper Software Engineering includes heavy testing during development. I also know of one company that spends Billions (Microsoft) on everything you stated, and well, let their end product speak for itself. It does not support your conclusion. I rest my case. -T-
To respond to Joe #302 I think that you may want to rethink your position and help usher your company into quicker development. Everyone in your company should be involved in QA activities because it is everyone's job. If the developers learn from their own mistakes, then they should be constantly improving and not have to bother you with errors that could be fixed by them. The QAE should be worrying more about integration testing rather than unit testing, but the SDE should also ensure that their code is scalable and will not cause errors due to an inability to forsee problems.
I have a simple question as a former-programmer, now business guy, between dev and QA.
Why not put pay performance targets on both sides as incentives per testing release?
In other words, each QA person gets $10 for each bug they find (up to 10, or whatever). Each development person gets $10 for the number of bugs not found under a certain target (10, or whatever).
Seems like an easy way to get people more motivated about the whole testing process.
To respond to Major Tom: I commend you on having only 2 bugs in your portion of code with a 3000 site deployment. However, I'm wondering if you're an anomaly and am concerned that this methodology sets a dangerous precedent. Considering the approach of a development engineer should be, and in the best companies is, fundamentally different from that of a test engineer. The DE is solving a positive functional problem, while the TE is addressing the validation and exceptions associated with the DE's solution. When presented with requirements from (in most cases) Marketing PMs, the DE considers how to make the feature/product work, while the TE considers where and how the feature/product will be deployed (functionality and performance testing) and under what circumstances it might break (stress, robustness, and negative testing). As much as we try in our smaller organization to unite the DE and TE mindset to save headcount and to arguably improve unit testing prior to the hand-off to TEs, they will always remain firmly divided.
I had very good success writing my own tests as I was writing libdomainkeys. As I wrote the code, I would create the test. Every branch was labelled with a comment naming the test which forced that branch to be executed. Too bad our text editors don't (usually) support hot-linking between source files.
I have a simple question as a former-programmer, now business guy, between dev and QA.
Why not put pay performance targets on both sides as incentives per testing release?
In other words, each QA person gets $10 for each bug they find (up to 10, or whatever). Each development person gets $10 for the number of bugs not found under a certain target (10, or whatever).
Seems like an easy way to get people more motivated about the whole testing process.
I think a point to be made here is that engineers of any sort tend to get accustomed to an idea or algorithm or whatever they've been working on. They see it as working just fine. The QA people are there to ensure that your idea of fine agrees with everyone elses. Sure, maybe it doesn't have bugs, but maybe the interface isn't as intuitive as it might be, or whatever. The point is, the more people that look at it before production, the more likely it is to be useful and useable. If you want to streamline your development timeline, you include QA people in the development cycle, to add their input as the project progresses. That way problems can be identified and resolved before it becomes a major problem. But you already knew that - it's your basic concurrent engineering model you learned about in college. I hope.
Michelle from Google suggested to share the following with you all:
Kudos to the effort of brainstorming the idea of testing bumper(Harry Robinson style) stickers and tests in toilets.
Here are my 2 cents:
Toilet stickers:
1. The better you code, the lesser it stinks. 2. You expect the toilet to be clean, as we expect your code to be. 3. You mess, we spot, you clean. 4. You dropped the paper roll by mistake. Fix it ! 5. Thanks for remembering that you need to go back and fix the bug I found. 6. for ($i=0,$i< ($i--1);++$i) - I am not reminding your coding error :) 7. 234/8 - No! It's a cricket match score and not 234 bugs per 8 KLOC. 8. I am your friend but unfortunately our customers aren't. 9. The more time you spend here, the less time you distract me and the more bugs I find. 10. Did you come here running to think about the explanation you want to offer on why you missed that bug? 11. Don't believe me when I say; your code is working fine so far. I just want to give you a bigger surprise. 12. I heard you say, "Please leave me alone" and that is why I am not reminding you of the bug that took the longest time for you to fix it.
Tests:
1. An end user thought of running our program with a platform we no longer support. Should he get an error message - "You are not supposed to that" ? 2. "Arggh! The page is corrupted." - Does this mean you were unable to handle an exception? 3. I am going on a 3 week vacation and while I come back, I will have a report that my script generated on the reliability test. Are you sure, I wont see anything in RED? 4. "Sorry, no donut for you" - Who got the donut then? 5. The voice kept breaking, when I was using a dial up connection. Did ._ _ _ know? 6. I hear too many click sounds when I login. Do I have an option to hear less clicks? 7. I refer to James Bach's 36 heuristics to test. Do you use them to code? 8. When firewall is ON, your code isn't. 9. Proxies do not by pass bugs. 10. I tried closing the window in between. It goes away smoothy without the error message you expected to see. 11. I am always amazed at your coding skills but not the way you build your code. 12. His code never merges with anyone. Beware if you are merging with him. 13. I found a bug with your unit test script and hence I know what to test. 14. Last time my developer forgot to enable the logger. He spent a week convincing me to reproduce the issue. 15. Psst! Don't tell this to anyone. I look at our competitor product known issues and test them on our product. This helped me catch bugs faster :)
I have a simple question as a former-programmer, now business guy, between dev and QA.
Why not put pay performance targets on both sides as incentives per testing release?
In other words, each QA person gets $10 for each bug they find (up to 10, or whatever). Each development person gets $10 for the number of bugs not found under a certain target (10, or whatever).
Seems like an easy way to get people more motivated about the whole testing process.
This is a horrible idea.
I will not improve quality. It will not improve relations between business, developers, and testers. In fact, it will make relations worse within the company and can lead to real bug escapes that impact customers.
This will only lead to finger pointing and time wasted chasing unimportant and duplicate "bugs".
As a tester, I have often had to make the decision about reporting a bug as one or 100,000. I don't know if the 100,000 errors my automated test found are due to 100,000 different problems in the code or just one. I could report them separately, or I could report them in groups, or I could pick up the phone and talk to a developer than could help me determine how the bug should be reported.
And what if the bug exists because a QA person did a poor job of reviewing the requirements? I could easily provide input to requirements that I know will lead to bugs just to get a bonus.
Not all bugs are due to a developer making a mistake in their piece of code. Some are due to bad requirements given to the developer. Some are due to bugs someone else created. If one developer's code does not properly interact with another developer's code, who is to blame? If the issue to bad documentation and requirements, do we blame QA?
And then we could argue about what is and what is not a bug.
There was a Dilbert cartoon many years ago about the idea of rewards for fixing bugs: Now, I'm going to code me a new minivan.
I also had a question about the regularity of this. I think its a great idea, but I've had a hard time finding the collection of these. Is there a place for people to submit these, because I could come up with a few episodes.
Excelente aporte a toda la comunidad de testers en todo el mundo; nos dá una visión más cercana del entorno laboral y relacional dentro de Google. Gracias y saludos!!
Will you be posting the back catalog of past TotT installments?
返信削除Great idea. Thanks guys !
返信削除このコメントは投稿者によって削除されました。
返信削除Uncle John's Bathroom Reader watch out! :-)
返信削除A similar thing was/is in use at a place I worked. People made an effort to stay in the toilet for a long time (doodling on their PDA) and later claimed they were reading the work notes... :)
返信削除when i'm on the toilet, i really just want to do my business, not read about boring test advice. something more thought-provoking would be nice..
返信削除I've just installed a Wi-Fi printer in my bathroom. Can Google just print the publications directly?
返信削除My new Dihydrogen monoxide powered mini laptop has helped me tremendously when harold calls...
返信削除Now I have TotT...whoa...life is good.
Can you make it a podcast like feed so that I can download the pdfs whenever a new one is available on the iTunes store? That would be awesome!
返信削除Testing: "Bombs, away!"
返信削除*listen*
*plop!*
Success!
Sounds great to already have reading material available rather than having to print something out, get it from the printer, then carry it in
返信削除Google doing this...mmmmkay....
返信削除However, I shudder to think about the PHBs who will use this to other ends...
Saves toilet paper too!
返信削除Hm. I have to say, I think this is misguided.
返信削除I've worked for a long time in the testing/QA engineering field for software (seems like every company calls it something different, and there are different expectations of each, but that just leads to my point). My point is that QA needs to have a bright line between it and development. No doubt, developers need to be good at creating good unit testing. By the same token, good QA/Testers need to be good at development.
But the two should remain separate. Go to any mature industry's engineering department, and ask how much of the release testing is done or defined by the actual development engineers. The answer will be you'll be laughed out of the office. There's good reason for this.
This is a sign of the immaturity of the software development industry. We're getting there, though. I've worked for a couple of the truly big Seattle software interests, and they are slowly getting more mature in how they deal with QA. The key is, (for as good and happy as developers doing a good job developing unit testing for their own work): SDEs are not QAEs, and the distinction should not be blurred, if you want to maintain true quality.
and providing PDFs
返信削除How about just a printer friendly version without comments?
When I go to the john, I create the Bush cabinet, I don't worry about anything more than watching Cheney and Rice being flushed to a place they belong.
返信削除I think you may be missing a certain level of irony in your "positive comments"...
返信削除You may also be missing a certain level of fibre from your diet if you are regularly on the loo long enough to read through so much...
A picture of those bathrooms would be very informative and entertaining. Please...
返信削除Simply great!! :-)
返信削除A related curiosity: a friend of mine had in his bathroom some maths formulas he wasn't able to remember easily :-)
i guess this gives a whole new meaning to a "Googlebomb".
返信削除These folks obviously need to eat more fiber.
返信削除Holy shit !!!
返信削除To respond to Joe #302
返信削除You're wrong. I'm a developer in a fortune 500 company and I test everything I do. By the time it goes to Alpha test, only field anomalies break my code. So to say "SDEs are not QAEs, and the distinction should not be blurred, if you want to maintain true quality." you're, well, full of crap. Your statements should be flushed.
Not everyone has poor software developers working for them. A true programmer can take the project from cradle to grave, or more aptly from napkin scribblings to deployment and not have problems.
I have 3000 sites with my software for over three years and have had 2 bugs related to errors on my part. Proper Software Engineering includes heavy testing during development.
I also know of one company that spends Billions (Microsoft) on everything you stated, and well, let their end product speak for itself. It does not support your conclusion.
I rest my case.
-T-
One word: awesome. (okay, I lied) And, thanks.
返信削除To respond to Joe #302
返信削除I think that you may want to rethink your position and help usher your company into quicker development. Everyone in your company should be involved in QA activities because it is everyone's job. If the developers learn from their own mistakes, then they should be constantly improving and not have to bother you with errors that could be fixed by them. The QAE should be worrying more about integration testing rather than unit testing, but the SDE should also ensure that their code is scalable and will not cause errors due to an inability to forsee problems.
ewwwwwww. possible marketing backfire? "google" & "crap"...
返信削除I have a simple question as a former-programmer, now business guy, between dev and QA.
返信削除Why not put pay performance targets on both sides as incentives per testing release?
In other words, each QA person gets $10 for each bug they find (up to 10, or whatever). Each development person gets $10 for the number of bugs not found under a certain target (10, or whatever).
Seems like an easy way to get people more motivated about the whole testing process.
To respond to Major Tom:
返信削除I commend you on having only 2 bugs in your portion of code with a 3000 site deployment. However, I'm wondering if you're an anomaly and am concerned that this methodology sets a dangerous precedent. Considering the approach of a development engineer should be, and in the best companies is, fundamentally different from that of a test engineer. The DE is solving a positive functional problem, while the TE is addressing the validation and exceptions associated with the DE's solution. When presented with requirements from (in most cases) Marketing PMs, the DE considers how to make the feature/product work, while the TE considers where and how the feature/product will be deployed (functionality and performance testing) and under what circumstances it might break (stress, robustness, and negative testing). As much as we try in our smaller organization to unite the DE and TE mindset to save headcount and to arguably improve unit testing prior to the hand-off to TEs, they will always remain firmly divided.
Its a great idea ... Well as long as I am not asked to do 'pairing' inside the toilet.
返信削除I had very good success writing my own tests as I was writing libdomainkeys. As I wrote the code, I would create the test. Every branch was labelled with a comment naming the test which forced that branch to be executed. Too bad our text editors don't (usually) support hot-linking between source files.
返信削除Gives a new meaning to "toilet training" !
返信削除Thank you for your sane and sensible comments Major Tom.
返信削除Michael said...
返信削除I have a simple question as a former-programmer, now business guy, between dev and QA.
Why not put pay performance targets on both sides as incentives per testing release?
In other words, each QA person gets $10 for each bug they find (up to 10, or whatever). Each development person gets $10 for the number of bugs not found under a certain target (10, or whatever).
Seems like an easy way to get people more motivated about the whole testing process.
This sounds like a well intentioned idea, but it leads inevitably toward disastrous consequences.
And here I've always thought of testing as a crappy, #2 priority. Thanks for throwing another log on the fire & helping me see the light!
返信削除-Ken
Just reading material? You can do better.
返信削除(From eXtreme Feedback)
Re: SDE's are not QAE's.
返信削除I think a point to be made here is that engineers of any sort tend to get accustomed to an idea or algorithm or whatever they've been working on. They see it as working just fine. The QA people are there to ensure that your idea of fine agrees with everyone elses. Sure, maybe it doesn't have bugs, but maybe the interface isn't as intuitive as it might be, or whatever. The point is, the more people that look at it before production, the more likely it is to be useful and useable. If you want to streamline your development timeline, you include QA people in the development cycle, to add their input as the project progresses. That way problems can be identified and resolved before it becomes a major problem. But you already knew that - it's your basic concurrent engineering model you learned about in college. I hope.
I actually googled for "Linux Nerd 2000" to see if I was missing out on some cool new magazine. Heh.
返信削除Michelle from Google suggested to share the following with you all:
返信削除Kudos to the effort of brainstorming the idea of testing bumper(Harry Robinson style) stickers and tests in toilets.
Here are my 2 cents:
Toilet stickers:
1. The better you code, the lesser it stinks.
2. You expect the toilet to be clean, as we expect your code to be.
3. You mess, we spot, you clean.
4. You dropped the paper roll by mistake. Fix it !
5. Thanks for remembering that you need to go back and fix the bug I found.
6. for ($i=0,$i< ($i--1);++$i) - I am not reminding your coding error :)
7. 234/8 - No! It's a cricket match score and not 234 bugs per 8 KLOC.
8. I am your friend but unfortunately our customers aren't.
9. The more time you spend here, the less time you distract me and the more bugs I find.
10. Did you come here running to think about the explanation you want to offer on why you missed that bug?
11. Don't believe me when I say; your code is working fine so far. I just want to give you a bigger surprise.
12. I heard you say, "Please leave me alone" and that is why I am not reminding you of the bug that took the longest time for you to fix it.
Tests:
1. An end user thought of running our program with a platform we no longer support. Should he get an error message - "You are not supposed to that" ?
2. "Arggh! The page is corrupted." - Does this mean you were unable to handle an exception?
3. I am going on a 3 week vacation and while I come back, I will have a report that my script generated on the reliability test. Are you sure, I wont see anything in RED?
4. "Sorry, no donut for you" - Who got the donut then?
5. The voice kept breaking, when I was using a dial up connection. Did ._ _ _ know?
6. I hear too many click sounds when I login. Do I have an option to hear less clicks?
7. I refer to James Bach's 36 heuristics to test. Do you use them to code?
8. When firewall is ON, your code isn't.
9. Proxies do not by pass bugs.
10. I tried closing the window in between. It goes away smoothy without the error message you expected to see.
11. I am always amazed at your coding skills but not the way you build your code.
12. His code never merges with anyone. Beware if you are merging with him.
13. I found a bug with your unit test script and hence I know what to test.
14. Last time my developer forgot to enable the logger. He spent a week convincing me to reproduce the issue.
15. Psst! Don't tell this to anyone. I look at our competitor product known issues and test them on our product. This helped me catch bugs faster :)
aa guys nice idea, when is the release...
返信削除debugging code sucks; testing rocks; debugging test code really, really sucks
返信削除Michael said...
返信削除I have a simple question as a former-programmer, now business guy, between dev and QA.
Why not put pay performance targets on both sides as incentives per testing release?
In other words, each QA person gets $10 for each bug they find (up to 10, or whatever). Each development person gets $10 for the number of bugs not found under a certain target (10, or whatever).
Seems like an easy way to get people more motivated about the whole testing process.
This is a horrible idea.
I will not improve quality. It will not improve relations between business, developers, and testers. In fact, it will make relations worse within the company and can lead to real bug escapes that impact customers.
This will only lead to finger pointing and time wasted chasing unimportant and duplicate "bugs".
As a tester, I have often had to make the decision about reporting a bug as one or 100,000. I don't know if the 100,000 errors my automated test found are due to 100,000 different problems in the code or just one. I could report them separately, or I could report them in groups, or I could pick up the phone and talk to a developer than could help me determine how the bug should be reported.
And what if the bug exists because a QA person did a poor job of reviewing the requirements? I could easily provide input to requirements that I know will lead to bugs just to get a bonus.
Not all bugs are due to a developer making a mistake in their piece of code. Some are due to bad requirements given to the developer. Some are due to bugs someone else created. If one developer's code does not properly interact with another developer's code, who is to blame? If the issue to bad documentation and requirements, do we blame QA?
And then we could argue about what is and what is not a bug.
There was a Dilbert cartoon many years ago about the idea of rewards for fixing bugs: Now, I'm going to code me a new minivan.
I like the idea...some of the best ideas come to me when I'm in the "john" ^^ lol
返信削除That is a great idea, I will talk my boss into it, a "SEO Testing Practices Program in the Toilet", amazing, thanks.
返信削除Great idea to share the testing experiences from Google with the whole world!
返信削除However you promised to post TotT's "on a regular basis". The last TotT episode was published over a month ago. So what's this regular basis?
I also had a question about the regularity of this. I think its a great idea, but I've had a hard time finding the collection of these. Is there a place for people to submit these, because I could come up with a few episodes.
返信削除I like the idea. I will definetely try it out.
返信削除Regards,
Komail Noori
Web Site Design - SEO Expert
Excelente aporte a toda la comunidad de testers en todo el mundo; nos dá una visión más cercana del entorno laboral y relacional dentro de Google. Gracias y saludos!!
返信削除You get it! It's one serene place for thinking of creative ideas.
返信削除Kudos!
It seems funniest activity i ever seen...!! any way time saving work
返信削除Until I saw this post, I always thought it was Google Tricks of the Trade.
返信削除I guess sometimes truth is stranger than fiction!
Interesting text. You have a nice blog. Keep it up!
返信削除Such a wonderful idea you shown up. Thanks for sharing.
返信削除Great Idea
返信削除10 Years have passed, you're still the Lighthouse.
返信削除13 Years passed now. I dont know think they are still in lighthouse
返信削除