3 ms·
> The same is true of pretty much everybody - PMs and QA included. Everybody misses details and edge cases. No, the same isn't true of everybody. They would al
by croon 6y ago
> The same is true of pretty much everybody - PMs and QA included. Everybody misses details and edge cases.
No, the same isn't true of everybody. They would all have to miss the exact same details and edge cases, was the point. It's the same reason that you have sensor redundancy, you don't have the same sensor measure twice and trust it.
- pydry 6y ago?? That's exactly what I meant. With inputs from a diversity of people you can pick up the edge cases more easily. Separately everybody will miss some.
- croon 6y agoThen you just repeated what your parent already said. Your comment read like dissent.
- pydry 6y agoThat is not what the parent said. They advocated specifically for developers not writing test cases. I do not.
- croon 6y agoThey argued that separate people should look at a problem so as not to make the same mistake twice: > The developer that wrote the code by definition cannot write an appropriate test suite for it You said that issue could be applicable to everyone: > The same is true of pretty much everybody - PMs and QA included. Everybody misses details and edge cases. I pointed out that the issue can't be true of everybody, since everyone other than the original developer would generally avoid it. You then said I repeated what you said. Which is it?