Robots slacking off

Dear readers,
this is very likely my last cartoon for 2019 and I am already looking forward to drawing and publishing the next ones in 2020.
14 cartoons in a year is not bad, considering the fact, I have hardly any time to settle back after work and after having helped kids for school.

For those who want to know, I have a quite consistent hit-count on my blog (1600 pageviews p. month). In my world this is a lot. Well, not enough to become famous but still a lot of reasons to continue drawing in 2020.  I wish you very XMAS (even though I am kind of late) and a happy New Year 2020.
Torsten J. Zelger

False Positives

When developers start working on a new feature, they sometimes hard-code things with the intention to replace this part later with dynamic values. Sometimes, these snippets are forgotten, and you are testing features that work with hard-coded results. Success messages aren't excluded from this practice.

Simply said, never trust any success messages. If the program claims it worked, the program may be wrong. The opposite is also true.

The term "false positives" has its roots in medical testing. A false positive is an error in which a test result improperly indicates presence of a disease (the result is positive), when - in reality - it is not present, while a false negative is an error in which a test result improperly indicates no presence of the disease when in reality it is present. 

 

Yet another example:
Automated tests in NUNIT are declared with the "[Test]" attribute and in other programming languages there are similar terms in use to mark as method as test-method such as @Test, or other.

Anyhow, if a developer forgets to add the attribute, nothing bad happens. The compiler doens't care about it. The developer may have invested a lot of time developing the test case and then simply forget about this attribute. What happens is, the test never fails, because it gets never executed. 

 

 

Technical Debt not close-to-balance

I think it is normal in a project to accumulate technical debt somehow. You may have tough deadlines or other reasons to tend get things done more quickly than usual, probably with the mindset of getting it right later.

Other reasons for (quick) workarounds are new awareness (more experience) of how things work better under certain circumstances. The old approach was good for one particular problem, but not good enough for a general solution.

An increasing number of developers working on the same project may force the architect to enforce new coding guidelines or best practices for typical software development problems.

The use of embedded third party software may also trigger changes on your side when updates are delivered.

Technical debt should be avoided as much as possible and yes, there are scenarios where you are simply forced to live with technical debt. But, one should always be aware that, often, the time to improve old code won't be availble. Even if there will be such time, think about the risk of removing technical debt. Someone who works under pressure not only tends to seed ugly workarounds, but he is likely also adding sloppy unit tests (if he adds any at all). If that's the case, removing technical debts with refactored code adds new risks breaking functionality you won't know about until the customer reports them.

Kind of mixed up

Fred: "Lucy, look I bought a pedal tractor for our kids".

Lucy: "No you didn't, you fool! "

The challenge of prioritizing bugs

...

Commitment above-average

....

How dare you, Lambretta?

Usually I am testing software, but today, I enjoyed a 15 minute test ride on a brand-new Lambretta and
I decided to add my personal results to my cartoon blog even though this blog is mainly for software testing.

My goal today was to check-out whether the Lambretta revival V-Special is an interesting alternative
to my beloved but seriously broken Vespa. I've read the Lambretta advertisement in the news. I checked many pictures and it made me curious. The longer I googled the more excited I got, and I also checked the price which seemed reasonable to me.

The positive things I noted, was the quiet motor and the firm road holding at the speed of 80km/h. Something I wasn't used to my current Vespa. Also the design of the new Lambretta is great and contains so much of the Sixties. There is also space for the helmet under the seat which is cool.
However, less joyful is the fact, that almost everything is made out of plastic. Wouldn't it be nice if at least the wings were solid metal. If you carry a passenger, the wings will be full of scratches shortly.
In order to save fuel, you need to consider weight, but a little less of elastic material is desirable.

While on the test ride, I realized the slightly oversized LCD monitor just below the small analog speedo. Unfortunately, the LCD is so big that you can hardly read your speed in the analog display which I think is kind of dangerous, because you spend too much time looking for the needle; time that may be needed elsewhere.

Overall it looks really nice. The designers did a great job keeping as much of the Sixties as possible.The many plastic is a disappointement. I really hope they are going to change that soon.

Friday afternoon at Green Galactica

...

He just knew too much

THE DAILY BUG. "A software tester was found dead due to an overdose of drugs yesterday evening at his home in lower Manhattan, New York. His body was discovered before dawn on Sunday, October 5. He was a professional software tester and known for his strategies in spotting even hard to find bugs. An interviewed friend on site believes, he was murdered. "The tester was threatened several times by suspicious phone calls", he said. The police states they have found traces left by ugly critters at the crime scene. The police also stated, the main suspect was identified as Dendro Ponderosa, a modified name which has its roots in the Latin name Dendroctonus ponderosae, a mountain pine beetle and a remote relative of Dendro. The police published an appropriate mug shot of the suspect."
Reported by Formica Rufa

BETA Test at Green Galactica

One day the PL asked me to provide a checklist with the most important acceptance criteria and which served as checkpoints to enter the next phase of the project. The list was later extended with a few more items by the PL and PO. When the date came closer, someone worked on the list and changed most of the quality attributes from MUST to NICE-TO-HAVE without upfront warning. Obviously, someone realized one is not going to meet all the goals and changed the attributes beforehand. As a quality manager, I was concerned that tasks labelled NICE-TO-HAVE are never picked up, therefore I protested heavily.

 We then agreed to keep the list with its original priority, and, on D-DAY we would go through the list again and then decide for each unfinished task how bad it really is and what are the risks related if we are not completing the task.

 But, the cartoon fits even better to several similar situations where the testers warned management long in advance about the immaturity of the system. When deadlines were close, the pattern was often the same: concerns were overruled, management had “higher” goals and caused a mess with the decision to rollout the software despite the obvious consequences.