I like that this definition identifies action, discovery, and evaluation as being core to testing. However, I'm thinking of pushing, or rather constraining, this just a bit further.
What if we were to say that the evaluation is the action and discovery is the goal?
A test would then be the sapient part of validation or investigation -- the thinking and learning that cannot be automated. All those other things we do to test are really support activities that help us evaluate.
Test is not a document. Test is not code. Test is not executing a program. Test is not applying a procedural decision rule. Test is not anything that can be done by a machine. Test is the act of evaluating that requires sapience.
Test is thinking and learning that leads to discovery. We may test by evaluating existing data. We may test by running experiments that produce new data. We may take the output of automated checks to test. We may provide what we learn as input to coding new automated checks. The test is the action we perform in our minds.
This may come across as nitpicking vocabulary. That's not my intent. My goal is not to limit anyone's definition of test, but rather to shed a different light on what I believe sets testing apart from checking, and gives both checking and testing value.
If a check fails in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
The true value of our checking and testing is in the mind of a sapient tester. What value is there in all the things we call checks and tests without a tester (whatever their role or title) evaluating information and learning?
0 comments:
Post a Comment