I feel like today’s a good day to share a few stories about my first few months at Microsoft, and the (very) small part I played in shipping Windows 95.
My start at Microsoft is a story on its own, and probably worth recapping here in an abbreviated form. I started at Microsoft in January 1995 as a contractor testing networking components for the Japanese , Chinese, and Korean versions of Windows 95. I knew some programming and even a bit of Japanese (I later became almost proficient, but have forgotten a lot of it now). I also knew, for better or for worse, a lot about Netware and about hardware troubleshooting, and that got me in the door (and got me hired full time 5 months later).
Other than confirming that mainline functionality (including upgrade paths) were correct, there were two big parts of my job that were unique to testing CKJ (Chinese, Korean, Japanese) versions of Windows. The first was that at the time, there were a dozen or so LAN cards (this was long before networking was integrated onto a motherboard) that were unique to Japan, and I was (solely) responsible for ensuring these cards worked across a variety of scenarios (upgrades from Windows, upgrades from LanMan, clean installs, NetWare support, protocol support, etc.). One interesting anecdote from this work was that I found that one of the cards had a bug in its configuration file causing it to not work in one of the upgrade scenarios. Given the time it typically took to go to the manufacturer to make a fix and get it back we decided to make the fix on our end. Because I knew the fix (a one liner), I made the change, checked it in, and that one liner became the first line of “code” I wrote for a shipping product at Microsoft.
The other interesting part of testing CKJ Windows was that Windows 95 was not Unicode; it was a mixed byte system where some (most) characters were made up of two bytes. Each language had a reserved set of bytes specified as Lead Bytes, that indicated that that byte, along with the subsequent byte were part of a single double-byte character. Programs that parsed strings had to parse the string using functions aware of this mechanism, or they would fail. Often, we found UI where we could put the cursor in the middle of a character. The interesting twist for networking was that the second byte could be 0x7c (‘|’), or 0x5c (‘\’). As you can imagine, these characters caused a lot of havoc when used in computer names, network shares, paths, and files, and I found many bugs testing with these characters (more explanation on double-byte characters, along with one of my favorite related bugs is described here).
While I didn’t do nearly as much for the product as many people on the team who had worked on the product for years, I think I made an impact, and I learned so many things and learned from so many different people.(potentially) related posts:
Readers of my blog know my stance on UI automation. But, as I’ve forgotten my StickyMinds password, and the answer is longer than 140 characters, so I’m responding here.
This article from Justin Rohrman talks about the coolness of Selenium for UI testing. In a paragraph called, “Why the UI”, Justin wrote:
The API and everything below that will give you a feel for code quality and some basic functionality. Testing the UI will help you know things from a different perspective: the user’s.
I like everything else in the article, but that second sentence kills me. Writing automated tests for the UI is as close to a user perspective as I am to the moon (I’m only on the 20th floor). I’m going to do Justin a favor and rewrite that paragraph for him here. Justin – if you read this, feel free to copy and paste the edit.
…some basic functionality. Testing the UI is difficult and prone to error, and automation can never, ever in a million years replace, replicate, or mimic a real users interaction with the software. However, sometimes it’s convenient – and often necessary to write UI automation for web pages, and in cases where that happens, Selenium is obvious choice.
Justin – your work is good – I just disagree (a LOT) with the trailing sentence of the paragraph in question.
Back to work for me…(potentially) related posts:
It’s been a long time since I have had to talk so much, but I had a great time, and met some great people.
As promised (to many people in my talks), here are the links to my presentations.
I mentioned in my last post that I has a new job at Microsoft (and I discussed it a bit more on the last AB Testing). During the interviews for the job, I talked a lot about quality. I used the agile quadrants as one example of how a team builds quality software (including my roles in each of the quadrants), but I also talked about quality software coming from a pyramid of activities and processes. I’ve been dwelling on the model for the last week or so, and wanted to share it for comments and feedback…or to just brain-dump the idea.Processes / Practice / Culture
The base of software quality (and my pyramid) is in the craftsmanship and approach of the team. Do they care about good unit testing and code reviews, or do they check in code willy nilly? Do they take pride in having a working product every day, or does the build fall on the floor for days on end? The base of the pyramid is critical for making quality software – but on established teams can be the most difficult thing to change.Code Quality (correctness)
An extension of PP&C above is code correctness. This is a more granular look specifically at code quality and code correctness. This includes attention to architecture, code design, use of analysis tools, programming tools, and overall attention do detail on writing great code.Functional Quality
Unit tests, functional tests, integration / acceptance tests, etc. are all part of product quality. I italicize, because for some reason, some folks think that quality ends here – that if the tests pass, the product is ready for consumers. (un?)Fortunately, readers of this blog know better, so I’ll save the soapbox rant for another day. However, a robust and trustworthy set of tests that range from the unit level to integration and acceptance tests is a critical part of building software quality.Automate Everything
There are some folks in software in the “Automate Everything” camp. A lot of testers don’t like this camp, because they think it will take away their job. Whatever.
As far as I can tell from my limited research on this camp, Automate Everything means automate all of the unit functional and integration tests…and maybe a chunk of the performance and reliability tests. For some definitions of “Everything”, I agree. Absolutely automate all of this stuff, and let (make) the developer of the code under test do it. The testers’ mind is much better put to use higher up the pyramid.-Ilities
Performance, reliability, usability, I18N, and other non-functional requirements / ilities are what begins to take your product from something that is functionally correct to something that people may just want to use. Often, the ilities are ignored or postponed until late in the product cycle, but good software teams will pay a lot of attention to this part of the pyramid throughout the product cycle.Customer Quality
It doesn’t matter how much you kick ass everywhere else in the pyramid. If the customers don’t like your product, you made a shitty product. It may be a functionally correct masterpiece that passes every test you wrote, but it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t provide value for your customers. Team members can “act like the customer”, be an “advocate for the customer”, or flat out, “be the customer”, but I’ll tell you (for likely the twentieth time on this blog), as a member of the product team, you are not the customer! That said, this is the part of the pyramid where good testers can shine in finding the fit and finish bugs that cause a lot of software to die the death of a thousand paper cuts.
Now, if you do everything else in the pyramid well, you have a better shot at getting lucky at the top, but your best shot at creating a product that customers like crave is to get quantitative and qualitative feedback directly from your users. Use data collection to discover how they’re using the product and what errors they’re seeing, ask them questions (in person, or via surveys), monitor twitter, forums, uservoice, etc. to see what’s working (and not working), and use the feedback to adapt your product. Get it in their hands, listen to them, and make it better.
More to come as I continue to ponder.(potentially) related posts:
In January of 1995, I began some contract work (testing networking) on the Windows 95 team at Microsoft. Apparently, my work was appreciated, because in late May, I was offered a full time position on the team.
My first official day as a full time Microsoft employee was June 5, 1995.
That was twenty years ago today!
I never (ever!) thought I would be at any company this long. I thought computer software would be a fun thing to do “for a while” – but I didn’t realize how much I’d enjoy creating software, and dealing with all of the technical and non-technical things aspects that come with it. I learned a lot – and even though my fiftieth birthday is close enough to see, I’m still learning, and still having fun – and that’s a good thing to have in a job.
I’ve had fourteen managers, and seventeen separate offices. I’ve made stuff work (and screwed stuff up) across a whole bunch of products. I’ve done a ton of testing, entered thousands of bugs, and written code that’s shipped in Windows, Xbox, and more (not bad for a music major who stumbled into software).
In a nice bit of coincidence, my twenty-year mark also is a time of change for me. After two years working on Project Astoria (look it up – it’s really cool stuff), it’s time for me to do something new at Microsoft…something that aligns more with my passions, skills, and experiences – and something that shows what someone with over two decades of software testing experience can do for modern software engineering.
I’ve joined (yet another) v1 product team at Microsoft. Other than a few contract vendors, the team of a hundred or so has no software testers. They hired me to be “the quality guy”. This set up could be bad news in many worlds, but my job is definitely not to try to test everything. Instead, my job is to offer quality assistance, help build a quality culture, assist in exploratory testing, and look at quality holistically across the product. I don’t know if any jobs like this exist elsewhere (inside or outside of Microsoft), but I’m excited (and a bit scared) of the challenge.
More to come as I figure out what I do, and what it means for me as well as everyone else interested in software quality.(potentially) related posts:
Whaaa…? Two posts on automation in one week?
Normally, I’d refrain, but for those who missed it on twitter, I recorded an interview with Fog Creek last week on the Abuse and Misuse of Test Automation. It’s short and sweet (and that includes my umms and awws).
I think this is the first time I’ve blogged about automation since writing…or, to be fair, compiling The A Word.
But yet again, I see questions among testers about the value of automation and whether it will replace testers, etc.. For example, this post from Josh Grant asks whether there are similarities between automated trucking and automated testing. Of course, I think most testers will go on (and on) about how much brainpower and critical thinking software testing needs, and how test automation can never replace “real testing”. They’re right, of course, but there’s more to the story.
Software testing isn’t at all unique among professions requiring brain power, creativity, or critical thinking. I challenged you to bingoogle “Knowledge Work” or Knowledge Worker”, and not see the parallels to software testing in other professions. You know what? Some legal practices can be replaced by automation or by low-cost outsourcing – yet I couldn’t find any articles, blogs, or anything else from lawyers complaining about automation or outsourcing taking away their jobs (disclaimer – I only looked at the first two pages of results on simple searches). Apparently, however, there are “managers” (1000’s of them if I’m extrapolating correctly) who claim that test automation is a process for replacing human testers. Apparently, these managers don’t spend any time on the internet, because I could only find second hand confirmation of their existence.
At risk of repeating myself (or re-repeating myself…) you should automate the stuff that humans don’t want (or shouldn’t have) to do. Automate the process of adding and deleting 100,000 records; but use your brain to walk through a user workflow. Stop worrying about automation as a replacement for testing, but don’t’ ignore the value it gives you for accomplishing the complex and mundane.(potentially) related posts: