5 ms·
I worked on mobile games few years back. Our tester always did everything that was sane and most things that were not sane. For every version. He tried to break
by hawski 9y ago
I worked on mobile games few years back. Our tester always did everything that was sane and most things that were not sane. For every version. He tried to break the game. He was randomly and wildly tapping the screen. He was repeatedly going through menus. The most things he did us developers thought: who would do that? We caught lots of bugs this way.
It was a company that you never heard of. It's a normal thing for me to require such things from QA.
I also worked in big corporation that you heard about, developing embedded software. Same thing happened.
Testing is doing things that most users do. But most of all testing is monkey bashing trying to break the thing. That's the mindset that QA must have.
EDIT: typos, thanks
- Sohcahtoa82 9y agoI've frequently seen people use "break" when they mean "brake", but I don't think I've ever seen someone get it the wrong the other way around.
- brown9-2 9y agoDo you realize for all the unexpected bugs your manual tester caught, an equal number were simply never found?
- hawski 9y agoNo one said that you can't do automatic tests. Manual tests do not exclude automatic tests. But I dare to say that manual tests are essential, because that's how the software will really be used. Especially for release candidates. Apple has resources to do both repeatedly. In this big corporation I mentioned tests were also done automatically. A device receives via infrared programmed set of commands in a loop for 24h. The test simulates a user with a remote. Even so called gravitational tests are useful. A test where "only" gravitation acts on a device for 24h. Those may seem dumb, but bugs can be hunted this way, that no automatic test could find. Because real hardware and release environment is messy.
- vinceguidry 9y agoThat approach works for behavior and UX, but is woefully inadequate for security, sadly. The space for shenanigans is exponentially greater.