[trustable-software] We've got this all wrong !
trustable at panic.fluff.org
trustable at panic.fluff.org
Mon Apr 16 16:17:21 BST 2018
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, Paul Sherwood wrote:
> Hi Edmund
> On 2018-04-16 10:12, trustable at panic.fluff.org wrote:
>> So I'm arguing we NEVER have requirements, we do have intents, we
>> accept what the tests tell us about behaviour and use this as a RISK
>> model to see if we are heading somewhere.
>
> You're not using the t.notation so I'm not sure what you now mean by
> 'requirements'.
I'm carefully avoiding the t.notation in this debate.
One problem is how we definite what a requirement is
within the t.notation form we never put formal
definitions on their value. Only on their relationships
>I'm kind of hoping you are right, but what about:
>
> 1) Re-development of existing solution using existing requirements from, say,
> DOORS - which do have tests, albeit retrofitted
I'm saying I think though there is a lot of employment in collecting
these requirements, in fact we only know the behaviour and reliance based
on the test harness and results. These are then retrofitted to the
documentation. What's in fact worse about this is we don't retrofit a risk
measure to the results. We simply assume because the tests mirrored
expected behaviour and were reproducible we have 'trustable' software.
> 2) Project which must satisfy a specific law (e.g. reversing camera video
> must be available by X seconds)
So again I'm saying we begin with an 'Intent' we build tests to confirm
this with the auditor for the specification. We don't in fact start with
this in mind.. The regular statement being JFDI and we'll iteratively
improve later.
I think this might even apply further and in fact there is no
architecture, only a bunch of purchasing decisions and so career
progression decisions. In fact the architecture is a result of the
implementation and the tests and only exists after the implementation.
The modern IaaS & PaaS approaches have value because of the easy to change
your decisions very late in the day, and the cost isn't the physical. How
often do we do product comparisons for solutions which turn out simply to
be a scoring system to choose what we already know or need on our CVs
without in fact looking for a more complete solution.
Edmund
--
========================================================================
Edmund J. Sutcliffe Thoughtful Solutions; Creatively
<edmunds at panic.fluff.org> Implemented and Communicated
<http://panic.fluff.org> +44 (0) 7976 938841
More information about the trustable-software
mailing list