谷歌的软件测试之道：创新与实践

5星 · 超过95%的资源需积分: 50 158 浏览量更新于2024-07-26 4 收藏 8.17MB PDF 举报

"本书《Google如何测试软件》深入探讨了Google在软件开发和测试方面的实践方法，由James Whittaker撰写。书中揭示了Google在自动化测试、人工测试结合、内部与外包资源融合以及野外观测测试等方面的创新策略，旨在帮助读者理解如何在快速变化的应用测试领域保持竞争力和相关性。此外，书中还介绍了Google如何通过持续创新解决新问题并推出更优质的应用。" 在Google的软件测试实践中，有几个关键知识点值得深入理解： 1. **自动化与人工测试的结合**：Google不仅依赖自动化测试来提高效率，也重视人工测试的角色。自动化测试可以覆盖大量重复性工作，确保基础功能的稳定性，而人工测试则能关注到用户交互、用户体验等自动化难以捕捉的细节。 2. **内部与外部资源的融合**：Google在测试过程中会结合内部团队和外包资源，这有助于获取多样化的视角和技能，确保产品在不同环境和条件下都能正常运行。 3. **野外观测测试（In-the-Wild Testing）**：Google开创性地将测试扩展到真实用户环境中，收集实际使用数据，以便更好地了解应用在复杂、不可预知情况下的表现。这种方法可以发现实验室环境中难以复现的问题。 4. **持续创新与问题解决**：Google不断尝试新的测试策略，以适应云计算时代的挑战。这种对创新的追求使他们能够解决传统测试方法无法解决的问题，提升应用的质量和性能。 5. **快速发布与迭代**：Google推崇快速迭代的文化，每天可能都会进行版本发布。这需要强大的测试框架支持，确保每次更新都能稳定可靠。 6. **技术与过程创新**：书中提到的计算机科学方法应用于测试，意味着Google可能采用了先进的数据分析、人工智能或机器学习技术来优化测试过程，提高测试覆盖率和效率。 7. **质量保证文化**：在Google，测试不仅仅是一个阶段，而是一种贯穿整个开发流程的文化。每个人都参与到保证产品质量的过程中，从而打造出高质量的产品。 8. **游戏化测试**：为了激发团队的积极性，Google可能利用游戏化元素，如设立测试挑战，促进团队间的竞争和合作，提高测试的参与度和效果。 9. **故障预防**：Google强调在早期阶段就识别和修复问题，而不是等到问题发生后才去解决。这包括了对代码的严格审查、设计阶段的考虑以及持续的监控。 10. **测试工具与框架**：Google开发并使用了一系列自定义的测试工具和框架，这些工具可能具有高度可定制性和灵活性，以适应Google庞大的产品线和复杂的测试需求。《Google如何测试软件》一书提供了对Google独特测试哲学和实践的洞察，对于任何想要提升测试质量和效率的软件开发团队来说，都是宝贵的参考资料。通过学习和借鉴这些方法，读者可以改进自己的测试流程，以适应不断发展的技术和市场环境。

ptg7759704

worked, of course, but in the process, we learned valuable lessons and

practices that are applicable to any company that wants to grow or move at

the speed of Google. We learned how to have attention to quality without

derailing development or the speed at which we got things done. The

resulting process, with some insights into the thinking behind them and

what makes them work, is what this book is about. If you want to under-

stand how Google met the challenges of testing in the twenty-first century

on modern Internet, mobile, and client applications, then you have come to

the right place. I may wish it was me who was telling the rest of the story,

but James and his coauthors beat me to it and they have nailed the essence

of what testing is like here at Google.

One final note on the book: James Whittaker is the guy who made this

book happen. He came to Google, dug in to the culture, took on big and

important projects, and shipped products such as Chrome, Chrome OS,

and dozens of smaller ones. Somewhere in that time, he became the public

face of Google testing. But, unlike some of his other books, much of this

material is not his. He is as much a reporter on the evolution of how

Google tests software as he is a contributor to it. Keep that in mind as you

read it because James will probably try to take all the credit for himself!

As Google grew from 200 to over 20,000 employees, there were many

people who played important roles in developing and putting into action

our testing strategy. James credits many of them and they have contributed

directly by writing sidebars and giving interviews that are published in

this book. However, no one, not me, James, or anyone else mentioned in

this book, has had as much influence as Patrick Copeland, the architect of

our current organizational structure and leader of Google’s Engineering

Productivity team. Every tester in the company reports up through Patrick

and he is the executive whose vision created what James has documented

and contributed to here. If anyone can take credit for how Google tests

software today, it’s Patrick. I am not just saying this because he’s my boss; I

am saying it because he’s my boss and he told me to say it!

Alberto Savoia is an engineering director and innovation agitator at

Google. He first joined Google in 2001 when, among other things, he man-

aged the launch of Google AdWords and played a key role in kick-starting

a developer / unit testing culture in the company. He is also the author of

The Way of Testivus and of “Beautiful Tests” in O’Reilly’s Beautiful Code.

Note by James Whittaker: I couldn’t agree more! As a scribe and jour-

nalist in this process, I owe most of the material to the organization that

Patrick has created. And I am not just saying this because he gave me per-

mission to write this book. As my boss, he made me write this book!

Foreword by Alberto Savoia xv

ptg7759704

A Fault to Guide Software Testing

010101011011000100100100101010110110001001001001010

Foreword by Patrick Copeland

My adventure with Google started in March of 2005. If you read Alberto’s

foreword, you know a bit about the conditions of Google around that time.

It was small but beginning to show signs of serious growing pains. It was

also a time of rapid technological change as the web world was welcoming

dynamic content and the cloud was becoming a viable alternative to the

then dominant world of client-server.

That first week, I sat with the rest of the Nooglers topped with a tri-

colored propeller hat listening to the founders discussing corporate strate-

gy at a weekly company meeting called TGIF. I knew little about what I

had gotten myself into. I was naïve enough to be excited and aware

enough to be more than a little intimated. The speed and scale of Google

made my previous decade of 5-year ship cycles seem like poor preparation.

Worse still, I think I was the only tester wearing one of those Noogler hats.

Surely there were more of us somewhere!

I joined Google when engineering was just shy of 1,000 people. The

testing team had about 50 full timers and some number of temporary

workers I never could get my head around. The team was called “Testing

Services” and focused the majority of its energy on UI validation and

jumping into projects on an as-needed basis. As you might imagine, it

wasn’t exactly the most glorified team at Google.

But at that time it was enough. Google’s primary businesses were

Search and Ads. The Google world was much smaller than it is today, and

a thorough job of exploratory testing was enough to catch most quality

concerns. But the world was slowly changing. Users were hitting the web

in unprecedented numbers and the document-based web was giving way

to the app-based web. You could feel the inevitability of growth and

change where the ability to scale and get to market quickly would be the

difference between relevance and…a place you did not want to be.

Inside Google, the scale and complexity issues were buckling Testing

Services. What worked well with small homogenous projects was now

burning out good testers as they leapt from one project that was on fire to

the next. And topping all that off was Google’s insistence to release quick-

er. Something needed to give and I had the choice between scaling this

manually intensive process or changing the game completely. Testing

Services needed a radical transformation to match the radical change hap-

pening to the industry and the rest of Google.

I would very much like to say that I drew upon my vast wealth of

experience and conjured the perfect test organization, but the truth is that

my experience had taught me little more than the wrong way to do things.

Every test organization I ever worked as part of or led was dysfunctional

in one way or the other. Stuff was always broken. The code was broken, the

ptg7759704

tests were broken, and the team was broken! I knew what it meant to be

buried under quality and technical debt where every innovative idea was

squashed lest it risk breaking the fragile product it depended on. If my

experience taught me anything, it was how not to do testing.

In all my interactions up to this point, one thing about Google was

clear. It respected computer science and coding skill. Ultimately, if testers

were to join this club, they would have to have good computer

science fundamentals and some coding prowess. First-class citizenship

demanded it.

If I was going to change testing at Google, I needed to change what it

meant to be a tester. I used to try to imagine the perfect team and how such

a team would shoulder the quality debt and I kept coming back to the

same premise: The only way a team can write quality software is when the

entire team is responsible for quality. That meant product managers, devel-

opers, testers…everyone. From my perspective, the best way to do this was

to have testers capable of making testing an actual feature of the code base.

The testing feature should be equal to any feature an actual customer

might see. The skill set I needed to build features was that of a developer.

Hiring testers who can code features is difficult; finding feature devel-

opers who can test is even more difficult. But the status quo was worse

than either so I forged ahead. I wanted testers who could do more for their

products and at the same time, I wanted to evolve the nature and owner-

ship of the testing work, which meant asking for far larger investment

from the development teams. This is the one organizational structure I had

yet to see implemented in all my time in the industry and I was convinced

it was right for Google, and I thought that as a company, we were ready

for it.

Unfortunately, few others in the company shared my passion for such

profound and fundamental change. As I began the process of socializing

my equal-but-different vision for the software testing role, I eventually

found it difficult to find a lunch partner! Engineers seemed threatened by

the very notion that they would have to play a bigger role in testing, point-

ing out “that’s what test is for.” Among testers, the attitude was equally

unsavory as many had become comfortable in their roles and the status

quo had such momentum that change was becoming a very hard problem.

I kept pressing the matter mostly out of fear that Google’s engineering

processes would become so bogged down in technical and quality debt

that I’d be back to the same five-year ship cycles I had so happily left

behind in the old client-server world. Google is a company of geniuses

focused on innovation and that entrepreneurial makeup is simply incom-

patible with long product ship cycles. This was a battle worth fighting and

I convinced myself that once these geniuses understood the idea of devel-

opment and testing practices for a streamlined and repeatable “technology

factory,” they would come around. They would see that we were not a

startup anymore and with our rapidly growing user base and increasing

technical debt of bugs and poorly structured code would mean the end of

their coder’s playground.

xviii Foreword by Patrick Copeland

ptg7759704

I toured the product teams making my case and trying to find the

sweet spot for my argument. To developers, I painted a picture of continu-

ous builds, rapid deployment, and a development process that moved

quickly, leaving more time for innovation. To testers, I appealed to their

desire to be full engineering partners of equal skill, equal contribution, and

equal compensation.

Developers had the attitude that if we were going to hire people skilled

enough to do feature development, then we should have them do feature

development. Some of them were so against the idea that they filled my

manager’s inbox with candid advice on how to deal with my madness.

Fortunately, my manager ignored those recommendations.

Testers, to my surprise, reacted similarly. They were vested in the way

things were and quick to bemoan their status, but slow to do anything

about it.

My manager’s reaction to the complaints was telling: “This is Google,

if you want something done, then do it.”

And so that’s what I did. I assembled a large enough cadre of like-

minded folks to form interview loops and we began interviewing candi-

dates. It was tough going. We were looking for developer skills and a tester

mindset. We wanted people who could code and wanted to apply that skill

to the development of tools, infrastructure, and test automation. We had to

rethink recruiting and interviewing and then explain that process to the

hiring committees who were entrenched and comfortable with the way

things were.

The first few quarters were rough. Good candidates were often torpe-

doed in the vetting process. Perhaps they were too slow to solve some

arcane coding problem or didn’t fare well in something that someone

thought was important but that had nothing to do with testing skill. I

knew hiring was going to be difficult and made time each week to write

hiring justification after hiring justification. These went to none other than

Google co-founder Larry Page who was (and still is) the last approval in

the hiring process. He approved enough of them that my team began to

grow. I often wonder if every time Larry hears my name he still thinks,

“Hiring testers!”

Of course, by this time, I had made enough noise trying to get buy-in

that we had no choice but to perform. The entire company was watching

and failure would have been disastrous. It was a lot to expect from a small

test team supported by an ever-changing cast of vendors and temps. But

even as we struggled to hire and I dialed back the number of temps we

used, I noticed change was taking hold. The more scarce testing resources

became, the more test work was left for developers to do. Many of the

teams rose to the challenge. I think if technology had stayed the same as it

was, this alone would have taken us nearly where we needed to be.

But technology wasn’t standing still and the rules of development and

testing were changing rapidly. The days of static web content were gone.

Browsers were still trying to keep up. Automation around the browser was

a year behind the already tardy browsers. Making testing a development

Foreword by Patrick Copeland xix

剩余313页未读，继续阅读

felix10

粉丝: 3
资源: 2

谷歌的软件测试之道：创新与实践

google软件测试之道

Google软件测试之道（中、英两版）

谷歌（google）是如何做软件测试的

谷歌软件测试之道

谷歌软件测试工程师谈开发与测试

谷歌测试框架googletest单元测试指南

谷歌测试实践：引领软件测试新风尚

谷歌测试秘籍：打造高效软件测试策略

谷歌测试艺术：打造高效软件测试实践

谷歌软件测试实践揭秘

最新资源