THAT’S THE WAY (UH-HUH, UH-HUH) I LIKE IT

Oh, hi, everyone. Excuse me whilst I remove my platform shoes.

More stuff on the differences between manual testing and checking? Argh. I wrote an entire blog (which was brilliant by the way – sorry you won’t be able to read it) on the topic, but decided not to post it as I wrote it. Damn Michael Bolton and James Bach anyway. If you haven't read their blog entries on this topic, you'll need to do that first, or this won't make much sense.

After reading their blogs, I sat around and thought about it for a while and decided my response was knee-jerk.

I understand the concept. It’s not hard to understand. I believe it likely James Whittaker and everyone else understands it too. One of the most offensive (and repetitive) statements made by James Bach infer that people who disagree with him don't understand him. In other words "anyone who disagrees with me is stupid".

Well, I understand, all right. I’m just not sure I care. Maybe that's how Mr. Bach's "rivals" feel too.

But I’ll make a concession.

There IS a difference, when contemplating manual testing, between what one might call “sapient” tests, which are being done for the first time and require concentration, analysis, and intelligence, and “rote” tests that have been repeated multiple times and where you are verifying a system reaction has been unaffected by changes or new code. The latter takes less attention than the former. The latter can be very boring. We try to automate the latter. We give the latter to people new to the function. We cut the latter where we can. So I concede that I have different strategies for handling these two categories as they have defined them. Same thing with automated testing.

But here’s the thing. I already have terms for those differences and I already have different strategies for handling them. But if this is the first time some people have ever recognized those differences, well, what can I say? This is old stuff to me, with new terminology. If it helps some bright people come up with new and better ways to handle “checks”, new techniques that cut time, resources, or costs without throwing away the knowledge and NECESSARY checks those “rote” tests provide, I will concede it was a Good Thing.

I do want to say however, that I’ve noticed that when the pickings get slim, someone who hasn’t thought of anything new for a while picks up something old and tries to MAKE it new. I can’t help wondering if it was either “checks” or comparing testing to raising ferrets.

I have to say that my mind isn’t blown. In fact, I’m kind of bored with this particular topic as it stands right now. And just as an inconsequential aside, I don’t think an on-line account to the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) is particularly “sweet” either. I think “free” is sweet.

Other (no doubt lesser) dictionaries define “manual” as involving and using human effort, skill, power, energy, etc. Or “done by hand as opposed to machine”. Overall, manual testing does not evoke the concept of unskilled physical labor. I encourage you guys to come on down from that ivory tower and join the hoi polloi. Those kinds of statements make me think you’re out of touch.

I’d also like to make the point that intelligence and sapience are two different things. You can be the brightest bulb in the pack and still continue to plug into the wrong sockets. Sapience requires some common sense.

So anyway, I’m “bracing myself for insight”. Maybe some will be forthcoming soon. At least some solutions to the issues of minimizing time/money/resources spent on “checks” would provide some benefit to the field.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to get my disco ball going...

Rock on.