3 ms·
The E2E testing one is driving me nuts. I've told people time and time again that we'll never be able to have hundreds (or even a dozen) of them working reliabl
by tjpnz 5y ago
The E2E testing one is driving me nuts. I've told people time and time again that we'll never be able to have hundreds (or even a dozen) of them working reliably. Yet people still try and to date we've lost even more hours in trying to make them reliable. The idea is seductive but in my experience an exercise in futility. At the same time I've proposed alternatives such as semantic monitoring but people typically recoil in horror when they learn what it means.
- throwawaaarrgh 5y agoIt depends on what your goals are. At Cisco, we absolutely needed to do E2E testing because we were shipping people physical devices that they relied on to work as intended. We built automation test frameworks and reusable/configurable tests. We built labs full of equipment and time-sharing systems to keep equipment constantly in use. Quality engineers wrote tens of thousands of (mostly) no-code tests, that would each do tens of thousands of permutations of tests. We wrote new test tools and bought high-performance test gear. In the end, we were able to do via automated testing what it would have taken thousands more people to do individually. Your organization and product goals may be totally different and not need that level of testing. But if it is needed, you can do it. It's up to your business to decide how much to invest in it.