That would require the scripting of every possible outcomes in an unlimited range of unknown circumstances, and that’s where Deep Learning may help.
What to Look For
As Donald Rumsfeld once famously said, there are things that we know we don’t know, and things we don’t know we don’t know; hence the need of setting things apart depending on what can be known and how, and build the scripts accordingly:
- Business requirements: tests can be designed with respect to explicit specifications; yet some room should also be left for changes in business circumstances.
- Functional requirements: assuming business requirements are satisfied, the part played by supporting systems can be comprehensively tested with respect to well-defined boundaries and operations.
- Quality of service: assuming business and functional requirements are satisfied, tests will have to check how human interfaces and resources are to cope with users behaviors and expectations which, by nature, cannot be fully anticipated.
- Technical requirements: assuming business and functional requirements are satisfied as well as users’ expectations for service, deployment, maintenance, and operations are to be tested with regard to feasibility and costs.
Automated testing has to take into account these differences between scope and nature, from bounded and defined specifications to boundless, fuzzy and changing circumstances.
Automated Software Testing
Automated software testing encompasses two basic components: first the design of test cases (events, operations, and circumstances), then their scripted execution. Leading frameworks already integrate most of the latter together with the parts of the former targeting technical aspects like graphical user interfaces or system APIs. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have also been tried for automated test generation, yet with a scope limited by dependency on explicit knowledge, and consequently by the need of some “manual” teaching. That hurdle may be overcame by the deep learning ability to get direct (aka automated) access to implicit knowledge.
Reconnaissance: Known Knowns
Systems are designed artifacts, with the corollary that their components are fully defined and their behavior predictable. The design of technical test cases can therefore be derived from what is known of software and systems architectures, the former for test units, the latter for integration and acceptance tests. Deep learning could then mine recorded log-files in order to identify critical cases’ events and circumstances.
Exploration: Known Unknowns
Assuming that applications must be tested for use during their expected shelf life, some uncertainty has to be factored in for future business circumstances. Yet, assuming applications are designed to meet specific business objectives, such hypothetical circumstances should remain within known boundaries. In that context deep learning could be applied to exploration as well as policies:
- Compared to technical test cases that can rely on the content of systems log-files, business and functional ones have to look outside and mine raw data from business environments.
- In return, the relevancy of observations can be assessed with regard to business objectives, improved, and feed the policy module in charge of defining test cases.
Blind Errands: Unknown Unknowns
Even with functional and technical capabilities well-tested and secured, quality of service may remain contingent on human quirks: instinctive or erratic behaviors that could thwart the best designed handrails. On one hand, and due to their very nature, such hazards are not to be easily forestalled by reasoned test cases; but on the other hand they don’t take place in a void but within known functional circumstances. Given that porosity of functional and cognitive layers, the validity of functional test cases may be compromised by unfathomable cognitive associations, and that could open the door to unmanageable regression. Enter deep learning and its ability to extract knowledge from insignificance.
Compared to business and functional test cases, hazards are not directly related to business activities. As a consequence, the learning process cannot be guided by business and functional test cases but has to chart unpredictable human behaviors. As it happens, that kind of learning combining random simulation with automated reinforcement is what makes the specificity of deep learning.
From Non-regression to Self-improvement
As a conclusion, if non-regression is to be the cornerstone of quality management, test cases are to be set along clear swim-lanes: business logic (independently of systems), supporting systems functionalities (for shared applications), users interfaces (for non shared interactions). Then, since test cases are also run across swim-lanes, it opens the door to feedback, e.g unit test cases reassessed directly from business rules independently of systems functionalities, or functional test cases reassessed from users’ behaviors.
Considering that well-defined objectives, sound feedback mechanisms, and the availability of massive data from systems logs (internal) and business environment (external) are the main pillars of deep learning technologies, their combination in integrated frameworks could result in a qualitative leap toward self-improving automated test cases.
- Tests in Driving seats
- Events & Decision Making
- Fingertips Errors & Automated Testing
- AlphaGo: From Intuitive Learning to Holistic Knowledge
- AlphaGo & Non-Zero-Sum Contests
- New Year: 2016 is the One to Learn
- Quality Management
- Quality Circles
- Model Validity
- Models Internal Consistency
- Models External Consistency
- Models Truth & Disproof
- Shadow Models