88""Yb 888888 db 8888b. Yb dP 888888 dP"Yb 888888 888888 .dP"Y8 888888
88__dP 88__ dPYb 8I Yb YbdP 88 dP Yb 88 88__ `Ybo." 88
88"Yb 88"" dP__Yb 8I dY 8P 88 Yb dP 88 88"" o.`Y8b 88
88 Yb 888888 dP""""Yb 8888Y" dP 88 YbodP 88 888888 8bodP' 88
Software Quality Assurance ★ Test Automation ★ Manual Testing
Current Date & Time (Pacific) ★
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My QA Philosophy 🤔
Go back ⮐
Thoughts on Software Quality Assurance 💭
- It's impractical to test every possible scenario.
- Additional defects found by exhaustive testing may not justify
the resources invested in leaving no stone unturned.
- Not all parts of an application are equally important
or carry the same level of risk.
-Testing should be concentrated on the areas that are most critical
to the users and have the highest impact on the user experience.
- Not all bugs are worth fixing.
- Allocate testing resources where they can provide the most value.
- Quality isn't just about bug hunting after coding is done.
- QA can provide input in early discussions to build a more solid product.
- Quality is a team effort. It's everyone's responsibility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts on Manual Testing 💭
I find value in exploratory testing. It's the freedom to approach
testing naturally, seeing the software through the eyes of an end
user. Without the confinement of scripts, it opens the door to
creativity and adaptability. This flexibility allows me to uncover
issues that might otherwise slip through the cracks. It also
encourages usability and UX observations that may not be considered
during a structured test. It's where testing transforms into an art,
using my curiosity, intuition and testing instinct to uncover unexpected
issues.
With that being said, I also appreciate the clarity and focus of
scripted tests when needed for comprehensive quality assurance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts on Automation Testing 💭
I'm all for automation, but I feel the idea of automating
everything should be approached with caution. It's not a
magic wand that makes manual testing disappear. There's a
misconception that it always saves time, but in reality, that's
not a guarantee. I believe in a balance between manual and
automated testing.
- Automation doesn't eliminate the need for manual testing.
- Automation won't always save time over manual testing.
- Not every test is a good candidate or suitable for automation.
- Creating an automation script requires an initial time investment.
- Automation scripts require an ongoing time investment (maintenance).
- Automation suite can grow too big and become unmanageable.
- Avoid getting stuck in a loop of constantly fixing automation scripts.
- Automation often leads to unexpected challenges.
Looking ahead is important. If the product roadmap says a part
of our site is getting a facelift in the next couple of months,
maybe we shouldn't go all-in on automation scripts just yet.
The last thing we want is to spend more time maintaining
automation scripts than we save by having them.
Also we need to keep in mind that automated scripts can be sensitive,
behaving differently between environments. What works perfectly in
the dev environment might throw a fit in a staging or production setting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top ⇧