4 ms·
> Which is not shocking at all: does anybody really think a human can run through 800 test cases better than a computer can? I think this rather misses the poi
by duaneb 11y ago
> Which is not shocking at all: does anybody really think a human can run through 800 test cases better than a computer can?
I think this rather misses the point; it's the bug that doesn't have a test case where QA helps.
- philk10 11y agoExactly. And having the computer run through 800 checks means a skilled tester can do what they are good at - finding bugs.
- IanCal 11y agoThis to me was always the point of automating tests. One of the best QA people I knew refused to look at the user stories. He was brilliant at finding things that fit the spec but didn't make sense and things that users might do that weren't specified. He found bugs in the specs, gaps in the specs and just plain untested behaviour. QA is a job that requires skill, benefits greatly from technical understanding and requires a lot of domain knowledge.
- philk10 11y agoYup, that's pretty much my job. The devs do great testing and I try and pick holes in what they miss.
- lotyrin 11y agoThis is why specification should happen collaboratively with everyone with a stake (and that includes QA just as much as BA), you can fix them before they're developed against.
- silverbax88 11y agoThis is what a great QA tester will do. Good devs don't ship code with known bugs - but they will miss things because they code to the feature/user story/known behavior. That's what their job is. A good QA person's job will be to spend a whole lot of time thinking about how to break the dev's app that the dev missed.