Thoughts on Software Quality Assurance 💭
- Every project, every team, and every challenge teaches me
- something new. I've learned a lot from the people I've worked with.
- I see my role as an observer and communicator, not as a gatekeeper
- or the 'quality police.' My job is to provide insights so the team
- can make informed decisions, not create roadblocks.
- I think product and development teams benefit the most in
- environments where QA is part of the full process and plays
- a more strategic role, rather than just being a final check
- before release.
- 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts on Automation Testing 💭
I'm all for automation, but I feel the idea of automating
everything should be approached with caution. I'm not jumping
on the automate everything bandwagon and recognize the pitfalls
of flaky tests and heavy maintenance burdens. 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.
- Be prepared to deal with and troubleshoot
flaky tests.
- 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
your local environment, might throw a fit in the
GitHub Actions runner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You made it all the way down here, so we'll give you a Joke.
Joke API source file:
jokeApi.js
------------------------------------------------------------------------
