3 ms·

Isn't test automation and demise of manual QA are just consequences of large increase in the test surface? Many more features, greater hardware variance, change

Isn't test automation and demise of manual QA are just consequences of large increase in the test surface? Many more features, greater hardware variance, changes to underneth tech stacks, etc all lead to a combinatorial explosion of what to be tested and manual QA wont be able to cover any significant portion of it, unless James Webb like money are spent on QA.

jiggawatts 5y ago
I think it's a lack of ownership and craftsmanship. You need that grumpy old master in charge smacking the apprentices on the back of the head when they don't live up to his standards. I'm very lucky to have grown up and gotten most of my work experience in that kind of environment. I was expected to aim for perfection, and punished without fail if I didn't achieve it. No half-measures. Do it right, or don't do it at all. There are people shipping code right now with 100 million to 1 billion users where they didn't even attempt to get it right. Knowingly, on purpose, they aimed to just barely pass the test. To meet the letter but not the spirit of the requirement. To build something that technically works, but not in practice. Make something that they wouldn't use themselves. This doesn't matter to them. They make the little test suite indicator turn into a green check mark, then it's time to clock out and go home. "Job done boss." And the boss never checked that it was truly done either. He's got no standards himself that the work needs to meet. The build system reports green, all is well in the world. "Ship it!"
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Amen. What's worth doing is worth doing well. It's the anti-thesis of move fast and break stuff but I really far prefer the careful approach to software development over the one that doesn't care about what happens to end users.
- pedro2 5y ago
  You want to keep your job => make boss happy, reach KPI. I don't blame them (the employee).

jiggawatts 5y ago

I think it's a lack of ownership and craftsmanship. You need that grumpy old master in charge smacking the apprentices on the back of the head when they don't live up to his standards. I'm very lucky to have grown up and gotten most of my work experience in that kind of environment. I was expected to aim for perfection, and punished without fail if I didn't achieve it. No half-measures. Do it right, or don't do it at all. There are people shipping code right now with 100 million to 1 billion users where they didn't even attempt to get it right. Knowingly, on purpose, they aimed to just barely pass the test. To meet the letter but not the spirit of the requirement. To build something that technically works, but not in practice. Make something that they wouldn't use themselves. This doesn't matter to them. They make the little test suite indicator turn into a green check mark, then it's time to clock out and go home. "Job done boss." And the boss never checked that it was truly done either. He's got no standards himself that the work needs to meet. The build system reports green, all is well in the world. "Ship it!"

jacquesm 5y ago
Amen. What's worth doing is worth doing well. It's the anti-thesis of move fast and break stuff but I really far prefer the careful approach to software development over the one that doesn't care about what happens to end users.
pedro2 5y ago
You want to keep your job => make boss happy, reach KPI. I don't blame them (the employee).