This is a continuation of my exploration into providing insight into micro-framework creation for automation, using my own Tapestry tool by way of example. The first post set the context and the second post focused on exposing an API. Here we’ll dig into exposing the organizing principle.
Here I’ll continue on with the introduction of my Tapestry micro-framework that I started in the first post. This time I’ll focus on a bit on how you want to create an API interface for your micro-framework.
Here I want to talk a little about test automation framework construction. Or, rather, micro-framework construction. I will use my own tool, called Tapestry, for this purpose. Tapestry is written in Ruby but what I talk about is potentially transferrable to your language of choice.
This post continues on from the first part where I went over the high-level details of a tester getting involved in a machine learning context. I left off just at the point of introducing the algorithm and letting us get to work. So here, in this post, we’re going to dig right in.
I’ve talked before about the intersection of testing and AI as well as provided a series of posts, using a Pac-Man clone to further introduce testers into algorithmic searching. Here I’ll consider a really simple example of engaging with a machine learning example. I’ll focus on reinforcement learning, which often isn’t talked about as much.
Earlier I talked about describing my own role. I think what I said there is almost interesting. Interesting, for me that is. But I often find testers struggling to frame their value beyond “I find bugs” or “I help mitigate risk.” So let’s dig into this a little bit.
Here I’m not speaking to the people who are interviewing for roles in automation. I’m speaking to the people hiring them. The interview process is entirely broken in so many places. According to Eric Elliot, code-based interviews have always been broken. And he’s probably right. Sahat Yalkabov said something similar. He’s probably right too. But here I’m focusing on the companies and hiring managers that are exacerbating the technocrat problem. So let’s talk about this.
Lately I’ve been seeing that the whole “testing” vs “checking” debate is now more used as a punchline than it is for any serious discussion around testing as an activity and tests as an artifact. Regardless of my perception, which may not be indicative, I believe that this distinction has not been very helpful. But let’s talk about it. Maybe someone will convince me I’m wrong.
The question of this blog title comes up often. The worst answer that can be given is: “When there are no more bugs.” It’s the worst answer because the inevitable follow up is: “But how do you know?” On the other hand, some people, upon answering this, begin providing a very convoluted answer. Here’s my take.
I phrase the title of this article as a question. This will be a short article. I don’t have solutions. I’m not even sure I have a problem. But I think I do. I think I’m sensing a problem based on observations. But maybe not. Let’s see if you agree or disagree.
Similar to reframing agile, I encounter a (perhaps surprising) number of experienced developers who outright deny that approaches like TDD or BDD have any value and it seems like we need a reframing here. But, in fact, I’ve found it’s more a case of getting people to uncomplicate the ideas.
Lots of people seem to focus on whether agile has failed. Or whether it’s dead. Or whether it’s a methodology. Or a process. What you end up with is something akin to Edmund Burke’s denunciation of political factionalism: “tessellated pavement without cement.” In the testing world this is even more so the case given the oft-used phrase “agile tester”, which any test specialist should be against. So let’s talk about this.
I talked before about tradition and dogma and not too long ago, on LinkedIn, I saw someone post yet another one of those bits of dogma in our industry without considering the context. The discussion that ensued showcased exactly the problem with simply regurgitating the “received wisdom” of others. So let’s talk about this.
For this post I’m going to be giving you all the commands you need to run algorithms through Pacumen. But I will note that the readme file of the Pacumen project does provide some context for you should you choose to play around with the project. You can also reference my exploring testing and AI post for more details on how to use Pacumen.