|
Testing is part of the development process. This might seem obvious to some, but suprisingly many people do not understand what it means. This is probably due to the idea that "QA will do testing". That idea has the effect of designating testing to QA and programming to Development, thus separating the two. Once separated the satement "Testing is part of the development process" does not hold true anymore and this can have disasterous effects.
I fully agree that QA does the testing, what I disagree with is the way in which development and testing become segragated from each other as an effect. The effect is natural since Testers are employed to do testing and Programmers are employed to do programming, thus creating two 'groups' of people.
What could be done about this? One idea is to only employ programmers and work with a rotation system. For example, a programmer would become a tester for one week every month. Another idea is for the product manager to be a qualified software engineer who is also head of QA.
Whatever method is used the aim should be to keep testing and development process intact.
Regards,
James Pullicino
Drinking In The Sun
Forgot Password?
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with most of that. In our job descriptions, we programmers are not to rely solely on QA to test our products, we have to test them ourselves. QA is good for testing cases we probably didn't think of, for doing regression tests, tests on different operating systems, etc.
Programmers are good at general testing (does the app do what it's supposed to without crashing), unit testing (which requires knowledge of the code), and such.
There are three types of people in this world: those who can count, and those who can't.
|
|
|
|
|
[James Pullicino] wrote:
Testing is part of the development process.
Sure. I agree to testing the code I wrote to ensure it does what was intended by the customer (as defined in the requirement paper). Testing the functionality of the coded unit before giving it to the QA staff is therefore essential.
The QA staff in our house will do the overall testing (testing really all features after a qualified plan), finding bugs and wrong behaviour or side effects which are not obvious to the developers.
Regards,
Erik.
The opinion expressed here is solely mine.
|
|
|
|
|
That gives me time to create new and more interesting bugs while s/he finds the last lot.
 
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Phil do you happen to work in my company ?;)
For example We code till 4.30 pm when the courier is coming to pick up the CD at 4.45pm, sometimes the courier has to stand around waiting for us to finish burning the CD!!! And then the next morning someone will ring to say the bit of code you finished at 4.37pm doesn't work !
Have a look at my website: http://www.chrisormerod.cjb.net
|
|
|
|
|
Phil J Pearson wrote:
That gives me time to create new and more interesting bugs while s/he finds the last lot.
I suppose that that is one way of oing about it.
Regards,
Brian Dela 
|
|
|
|
|
Ouch! 
The following statement about your geekness is true. The previous statement about your geekness is false.
GCS/IT/P d- s: a- C++++$ UL+>++++ P+ L++$ E- W+++$ N !o K+ w++$ O---- M--
PS- PE Y+ PGP--- t !5 X- tv b+++ DI++ D+ G++ e++ h--- r+++
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, that is the philosophy of the big boss. Developers should test their code, but they shouldn't be responsible for Quality Assurance. You can't effectively do both jobs at once. If you try, some part of it will suffer: the coding or the testing.
Jon Sagara
Damnit Jim!
|
|
|
|
|
Let's see now, I missed it in analysis, I missed it in design, I missed it in coding, I missed it in debugging, I missed it in unit testing, but wait! I'll catch it when I put on my QA wannabe cap, right?!
Hey, makes about as much sense as anything else in this business...
Chistopher Duncan
Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
|
|
|
|
|
Jon Sagara wrote:
You can't effectively do both jobs at once.
I agree, it's like proof-reading a document that you wrote.
Many errors are natural to the developer.
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining.
Said by Roger Wright about me.
|
|
|
|
|
There must be outside people that test your programs, because they come with a fresh mind. Btw they'll not only show the bugs, they'll also actively suggest better UI and stuff.
MS quote (http://www.microsoft.com/ddk) : As of September 30, 2002, the Microsoft® Windows® 2000 DDK, the Microsoft Windows 98 DDK, and the Microsoft Windows NT® 4.0 DDK will no longer be available for purchase or download on this site.
|
|
|
|
|
I worked for Robot Research a few years ago, eventually bought by Sensormatic (and now something else). They were the only company I ever worked for that had a functional QA department, with people who were actually intelligent. I'm really glad I had this positive experience, because everywhere eles I've been, the QA has been a joke.
I learned how to code so that every user action is logged, so I don't have to rely on the QA department saying "I did X" when in reality, they did "Y". I've had people test functionality they were specifically told NOT TO TEST because it was still under development. I've given QA a detailed acceptance test procedure which was totally ignored. The ATP is useful because, of course, there's no documentation when QA wants to start testing, so they don't have the slightest idea what to do with the product, hence they need some basic walkthrough document.
And then, there's getting management to pay for a real QA department. That's another battle. Oh, and lets not forget buying several different machines with different OS's to test the product.
I guess this is why Florida spent >$30 MILLION and still can't get their election right. Jeez. I worked for an election company, and it just isn't that difficult (I think I could have done a lot better with just $1M!!!). Of course, election people are some of the stupidest people in the whole world.
Oh boy, did this survey get me going.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
QA = joke:
Q: Who is the QA department for our company?
A: Our customers, of course.
Gary R. Wheeler
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The bad thing is, it's not even a joke here at my company. Our initial customers on a new product routinely find more bugs in the first couple of months of operation than our testing group (such as they are) find during the entire time they're banging away on it.
"Think of it as evolution in action." - 'Oath of Fealty' by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle
|
|
|
|
|
I hear ya. I remember one QA tester who favorite method was to bang on the keys like a monkey. "See, it's broken. You need to fix it." It started getting worse after he took a few VB classes and started explaining to the C++ coders who to fix the code.
|
|
|
|
|
well, since we are too small a group to have a full size QC department, we are using the following arangement: each programmer in the team is responsible for one or more projects, as a QC guy. plus the client (whcih are ususally inhouse clients) are doing their own UAT (users a cceptance tests).
but I am really am interested in something else: how much of you are CMM Level 2? Level 3? even heard of CMM?
Noam
Noam Ben Haim
Web Developer
Intel
noam.ben.chaim@intel.com
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
Noam Ben Haim wrote:
but I am really am interested in something else: how much of you are CMM Level 2? Level 3? even heard of CMM?
Well, we are somewhere between CMM Level 1 and CMM Level 2, heading for more ...
Erik.
The opinion expressed here is solely mine.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it is true. You know, whenever QA finds bugs, the first reaction from developers is screaming: "this is not a bug". But when this big man comes to your cubicle and says: "This is a bug!!!", somehow the answer usually is: "OK, I'll fix it". 
![Beer | [beer]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
But when this big man comes to your cubicle and says: "This is a bug!!!", somehow the answer usually is: "OK, I'll fix it".
Sounds like your shop is severely screwed - why does some QA guy bother developers in their cubicles? 
In here I will not lift a finger unless our project manager will tell me to do something. Users or testers are not allowed anywhere near the developers unless they can help in fixing something and assigned so...
I C++, therefore I am...
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
Sounds like your shop is severely screwed - why does some QA guy bother developers in their cubicles?
Usually he doesn't. He justs assigns a bug to me in our bug-tracking system. But sometimes, I think this is not a bug, so I mark it as "not a bug", and then the QA guy needs to approve my decision.
Generally, no product can be delivered until it is bug-free, and the QA decides when a product is "bug-free enough" .
|
|
|
|
|
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Generally, no product can be delivered until it is bug-free
Sorry, I have to resist the urge to laugh anytime somebody says that.. 
There are three types of people in this world: those who can count, and those who can't.
|
|
|
|
|
I kid you not ! This is about the only criteria many here use.
Oh no, you can't fool me. There ain't no Sanity Clause!
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Torrance wrote:
Well it compiles !
The first step to a successful program!
Roger Allen
Sonork 100.10016
I think I need a new quote, I am on the prowl, so look out for a soft cute furry looking animal, which is really a Hippo in disguise. Its probably me.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
