I feel like I have a lot to say on this topic as a QA person as well, but I don't really disagree with anything Rym and Scott said on the podcast. My scattered thoughts:
Unit tests should be written by devs. They do not because they don't like them and managers don't give a shit. Only method I've seen that works is to fail builds if testing code coverage drops from previous build.
QA should be responsible for all other real testing, including integration and feature tests as they have more experience in coming up with scenarios. Only exception I would make here is in load (not stress) tests as those should be informed by metrics rather than imagined scenarios.
UI automated tests are the lowest priority of testing, period. UX changes are frequent and making changes to tests are time consuming.
In my experience, having code reviews is just as useful as testing in finding bugs in code. Having the extra eyes points out things the dev might not have thought about, but QA would likely discover later at a higher cost.
QA will never go away. Quality Assurance means more than just making sure something is bug free. QA also involves making sure a product or service actually does what it's supposed to, and that it is something that customers will want to use. Even if your team or company doesn't have an official QA team, you certainly have support, which essentially acts as the QA manager with the public being the testers.
I too hate writing test cases however once I've done it, then testing a program becomes easier and I can easily uncover bugs which were hidden by a sloppy / hacky initial implementation.
However I always feel like I haven't tested everything because I can't possibly have checked for every eventuality.
So I feel like I understand the developer perspective, what do QA people hate from developers, I assume super easy bugs?
So I feel like I understand the developer perspective, what do QA people hate from developers, I assume super easy bugs?
I think the one thing that QA hates most about developers is snobbery. A lot of developers think that testing is beneath them, so they tend to avoid testing at all costs, and then get really defensive when QA finds something wrong with what they wrote, usually saying something along the lines of "you're not using it right" or "it's fine on my computer".
I've never personally met a QA person who got angry at a bug. Finding them is kind of the point, so the easier and bigger they are, the more fun it is to write them up. Super easy bugs make dev managers go, "how did no one on my team notice this?" Of course, it does get annoying after a while if it's constantly easy bugs that makes it really hard to actually get any real testing done, since easy bugs tend to be the most blocking ones.
Comments
Unit tests should be written by devs. They do not because they don't like them and managers don't give a shit. Only method I've seen that works is to fail builds if testing code coverage drops from previous build.
QA should be responsible for all other real testing, including integration and feature tests as they have more experience in coming up with scenarios. Only exception I would make here is in load (not stress) tests as those should be informed by metrics rather than imagined scenarios.
UI automated tests are the lowest priority of testing, period. UX changes are frequent and making changes to tests are time consuming.
In my experience, having code reviews is just as useful as testing in finding bugs in code. Having the extra eyes points out things the dev might not have thought about, but QA would likely discover later at a higher cost.
QA will never go away. Quality Assurance means more than just making sure something is bug free. QA also involves making sure a product or service actually does what it's supposed to, and that it is something that customers will want to use. Even if your team or company doesn't have an official QA team, you certainly have support, which essentially acts as the QA manager with the public being the testers.
However I always feel like I haven't tested everything because I can't possibly have checked for every eventuality.
So I feel like I understand the developer perspective, what do QA people hate from developers, I assume super easy bugs?
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/ill-register-my-drone-when-you-have-to-register-your-gun
I've never personally met a QA person who got angry at a bug. Finding them is kind of the point, so the easier and bigger they are, the more fun it is to write them up. Super easy bugs make dev managers go, "how did no one on my team notice this?" Of course, it does get annoying after a while if it's constantly easy bugs that makes it really hard to actually get any real testing done, since easy bugs tend to be the most blocking ones.