SCHOOL OF TESTING

There’s only one, folks...



Just when you think the madness is over, the dead are brought back to life. I think this zombie should have been left where it is – the corpse is starting to smell really bad.

But if you need some mid-week entertainment, head on over to testingReflections.com The mind-share information resource for software testing, agile testing and test-first/test-driven development and take a look at the arguments going on about “schools of testing”. As if we all hadn’t already flogged this topic to death. I’ve read James Bach’s blog, Paul Gerrard’s blog, and pretty much ignored Ainar’s blog, since his writing gives me a headache.

If James Bach wants a school of testing, peachy-fine with me. He can be the Official Grand Poobah of the Contextual School of Testing. No skin off my nose. In fact, if he wants to declare himself King of the Universe, wear a toga, eat nothing but haggis, and be carried everywhere in a purple palanquin borne by eunuchs in clown outfits, more power to him. He’s multiple universes above me in both money and authority, so as far as I’m concerned he’s pretty much earned the right to do whatever floats his boat.

But I do feel it should be pointed out that he utterly refuses to recognize that Paul Gerrard is right. NO ONE ELSE WANTS TO BE PART OF A SCHOOL. The Contextual Posse is alone in wanting to be associated with a school. And the only reason THEY want to be part of a school is that they consider it cool to be part of THEIR OWN school. It would be considerably less thrilling to be unwillingly thrust into another school, which is what that elite little group continues to do to the rest of the field. Pardon the fact that maybe it Pisses Everyone Off… Why did Mr. Bach stop with just saying Paul Gerrard belongs to the Factory and Analytical schools? Why not just call him an asshole and be done with it? At least it would be a bit less condescending and a whole lot more honest in terms of what he was trying to convey.

So why all the thrash about schools? Well, perhaps it’s because a large majority of practitioners don’t fit into one school. Every time there’s an attempt to stuff someone into a box, they inevitably tip it over, crawl over to another box, and share some fellowship with another “school”. In fact, at this juncture, I’d say all of our boxes have been tipped over and we intermingle at will. Except for the contextual school. They’re still in their own box. Just remember about the problems inherent in inbreeding.

To tell the truth, I really didn’t see any significant issues with the original thought processes behind “schools”. It appears to me it was an intellectual exercise where a bunch of guys started talking and made some efforts to categorize differences between the way different practioners approached their work. The problem with the exercise is that they did it sans those practioners and forgot that as a human tribe with a common understanding, they did so with prejudice. It’s also possible they don’t interact regularly with those outside the CP and therefore genuinely don’t know how the rest of the field commonly works.

So do you want to be fair in terms of “schools”? Then first you have to respect schools other than your own. I don’t see that from the CP. Everything they put as core beliefs, implications, and exemplars for other schools are a bit….well, discriminatory is the kindest word I can think of at the moment. I couldn’t find one exemplar that summed up my own practice. In any of the schools. I found only one implication that was even close, and I wouldn’t even consider it major. As far as core beliefs, I found I had 8 of those they had listed and that they spanned all 4 schools.

Ergo, I don’t seem to fit into one of those categories. I’ve worked in commercial/market-driven, telecom, safety-critical, Enterprise IT, government, and several fields not listed, so maybe that’s why I’m a mish-mash. But I haven’t found my own experience or belief systems much different from the majority of the field. So if I would be insulted to be placed in any one of the four schools defined because my belief system doesn’t embrace the core beliefs, exemplars, or implications of that school, I have to believe that the reason others feel the same way I do is for the same reasons I do. Hence the refusal from a large number of practioners outside the CP to embrace or support the concept. In fact, although I apologize in advance for the insult, quite a number of us find it kind of…well…stupid. I think it was probably a fun mental exercise at the time, but I’m not sure the results were what the rest of us would consider particularly accurate.

Overall, since no one but the Contextual Posse gives a shit about belonging to a school, it stands to reason that the only school that exists is the one they made up for themselves.

So you guys go for it. Feel free to categorize the rest of the testing world into little boxes; other than irritating us, it’s unlikely to rock our world. Frankly, I think it’s also time you developed a secret handshake, and perhaps you all need to tattoo your left butt cheeks with your School Mascot.

What makes me impatient about what I consider a dead topic is that it’s like trying to reason with a fanatic. Anyone ever try to talk to a fanatic? Mostly their eyeballs bulge and a lot of spittle flies around as they continue to talk. And talk. And talk. Fanatics don’t listen and fanatics can’t change their minds.

Hmmm. Perhaps I can capitalize on this myself. I’m thinking online chachki store. I think the first item will be a tin drool cup with a lovely CP school emblem emblazoned on one side…then I can expand into socks and maybe bedazzled thongs…

Regardless, I feel this topic is Old Stuff; unless someone takes a stab at redefining “schools” into something more reflective of my concept of reality, I’m content to allow this battle to continue to rage without my participation; we’re in the middle of a migration and we’re going to be really busy doing our fanalyconteqa (that’s Factory, Analytic, Contextual, QA) work.