With classic test tooling, we tell the computer to follow a series of steps, and then check the results against...
By submitting your personal information, you agree that TechTarget and its partners may contact you regarding relevant content, products and special offers.
some expectations defined upfront. But will there ever be a role for artificial intelligence in software testing, aka a machine software tester?
Imagine testing a mortgage calculator, not by having a half dozen predefined examples, but by randomly selecting valid data. That is, select a random interest rate from 0% to 5%, a random loan amount, loan term and so on. Then, you code another algorithm, called the oracle, which predicts what the answer should be. Run the software, see if the oracle and the software itself match, and you may or may not have a problem. That approach to test tooling is pretty well-defined; it is a simple example of what some call model-driven testing, which can expand to do things such as taking random walks through an application, providing random data to everyone and predicting what the results should look like. Run those tests overnight and they can find some interesting bugs.
It's tempting to call that artificial intelligence, but if you think about it, the computer isn't really learning. The application is following predefined rules. Terms like artificial intelligence and machine learning imply that the computer discovers the rules, or, perhaps, creates its own rules. With machine learning, the software can look at a thousand examples -- or a million -- and create its own oracle. Could this be like a machine software tester?
Here's a simple enough example: When you search for "software testing" on Google, you don't have a way to know if the algorithm is correct. You don't know, for example, if the pages at the top are the most relevant or have the most authority, how the software makes the tradeoff, and you certainly don't know how Google takes into account your location, search history and what you have clicked on in the past to improve your results. Yet, if the results were all about college exam preparation, or if a search for "The Beatles" returned "one of 25 results," you'd know that something was wrong. Your very life experience is an oracle of sorts.
With artificial intelligence -- in software testing or not -- we feed the computer massive data sets, along with some judgments about each piece of data, then let the computer try to figure out connections. Paul Graham, for example, once suggested a Bayesian filter for email, where humans first identify thousands of emails as spam or not spam, and feed that information into the computer. With each new document listed as spam and not spam, an inductive algorithm tries to figure out what the spam has in common, and to predict if incoming email is spam or not. This approach to spam is exactly what Gmail does, with the added benefit of a "report spam" button that provides more information for the filter. If one person presses the button accidentally, no harm done, but a copy-paste spammer -- even one that injects some randomness -- can be thwarted in minutes if the recipients use that spam button.
Now, sit back and think for a minute about the potential of artificial intelligence in software testing. You could train your application to recognize problems.
Training your application
Web crawlers and link checkers go through your entire website looking for 404 errors. Model-based software can recognize a crash -- a page with some text, such as "error in ./ Application" listed. Imagine training your software in a different way -- to find things that just don't look right. For example, tab order is complex. Typically, it moves left to right, then top to bottom, but there may be visual indicators, such as grouping boxes, which make the rules different. Imagine software that sat on top of your browser, watching your every move. When something is wrong, you type a keystroke combination and click the screen element that has a problem, which is reported back up to a database. Thousands of people are doing this, all at the same time. Eventually, the computer learns to recognize things that look odd. Once that's possible, we combine machine learning about fields -- for example, fields named "first_name" have this common set of valid inputs: John, Michelle, Sarah, Robert -- with the model-driven techniques to take random walks through an application -- and we can have an army of machines with inductive expertise testing our software overnight.
If that seems like a bit of a dream, it probably is. The software doesn't exist yet.
We don't have to wait for this ideal machine learning, though, to take the idea of artificial intelligence in software testing forward. Visual testing is a process where you record a test, then rerun that test on a new build. Each morning -- or whenever -- the testers can quickly move through differences, using a tool to verify them. They can mark each change as an error, something that needs to return to a previous state, or as a new feature, which becomes the new standard. Most visual test tools allow their users to train the software to ignore fields that change all the time -- automatically generated date fields -- or to only focus on things that shouldn't change.
All programming is essentially creating change, and these visual tools are offering change detection. That might seem redundant, telling the computer, "Yes, that change is what we expected," but it also provides a very fast way to review any visual changes -- not just the preplanned expected results so common in classic test tooling.
Between expected results in a traditional tool and visual inspection results, what's left for a tester to do?
First of all, don't worry too much. The newspaper was supposed to go away when the radio came -- and a hundred years later, my tiny town of 5,000 still has a functioning newspaper.
Second, don't worry too much. Even with a machine software tester, visual inspection tools still need a human to run them. The machine learning that will automatically find issues will find general website problems, such as crashes and text that bleeds into other text on a screen. The software won't have subject-matter expertise; it won't understand how multiline discounting works on a bill of material, and it won't understand the non-Windows-standard user interface decisions your company has decided are standard. And, of course, artificial intelligence in software testing doesn't exist yet. Most of the successful machine learning projects today in testing are more like analyzing a set of errors in production logs to figure out what behavior is driving those errors using a programming language, like R.
So, yes, take a look at visual testing tools. Take a look at programming in R. See if visual inspection tools make sense to augment the work, to push faster or better.
The future isn't going to be decided by one choice -- human testing or machine software testers. It will be more about humans and machines.
More changes await software testers -- and not all of them are happy ones
Testers, feel like you want to program? You may need to learn
From AI to big data -- another new testing area to think about