Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

QA? We don't need no stinking QA

thecodist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 62 posts

Re: QA? We don't need no stinking QA

#41

Post by hello_moto »

kabdib wrote: post #7

On the other hand, I've seen QA groups who do no QA at all. Instead, they do frameworks. "We need a test framework" are terrifying words to me. It means that I (the dev) will have no one at my back. It means that tests will be written by junior QA engineers (the senior ones are off writing and maintaining the framework, right?). It means that I am responsible for my own tests, because /no one/ else besides the custom…

Sounds like Microsoft with their SDETs. Most of them build crazily complicated frameworks because that might push them to SDE level, you know, the rockstar level.

If they failed, these SDETs will move to PM role.

I'm not saying all SDETs are like this, but join MS and you'll see quite a few of them.

Google probably have some too but lately I noticed that their approaches are different: instead of building a large automation frameworks, they build tools to help developers be more productive and produce less bugs even before the automation testing happens.

Re: QA? We don't need no stinking QA

#42

Post by bitmage »

Ugh. I worked QA years ago and swore to never do it again. Management hates you because you're telling them the product is not ready to ship. Developers hate you because you're pointing out their errors. No one has your back, and everyone wants to blame you.

The company had literally fired the whole testing department previously for saying the product wasn't ready. With those annoying testers out of the way, out the door it went. And promptly had multiple emergency point releases the following week to fix showstoppers cropping up at the customer sites.

That got them to create a testing department again - but it was still without honor in the company. And firing the whole group again was often discussed, as they were _still_ delaying releases by finding bugs!

I departed. They got eaten in a merger several months later.

Re: QA? We don't need no stinking QA

#44

Post by absconditus »

olegious wrote: post #13
mrgoldenbrown wrote: post #11

I would have liked to see a more realistic discussion of when QA helps the bottom line and when it doesn't. Plenty of software is sold and tolerated by users despite having bugs. If Microsoft waited until the bug count in Windows was 0, they would never ship, and would go out of business. In other words, this blog post is telling us that the correct amount of QA is higher than "no QA", but it is not helping us determ…

As a former QA myself, we never insisted on the bug count being 0, instead we focused on the "critical" bug count being 0 and the "major" bug count being as close to 0 as possible before shipping the product. Often it comes down to a negotiation between QA, dev and product but a good company will give QA a great deal of input in when a product is ready to ship.

This strategy backfires when managers want the release out so they fight to lower the severity for every defect that is entered. Then they generate a report showing no high severity defects and release the software. Another common problem is a high number of low severity defects that make the software annoying to use.

I am not claiming that a bug count of zero is possible with most software, but testing quality in at the end is the wrong approach. Nothing affects quality as much as the skill level of the developers.

Re: QA? We don't need no stinking QA

#45

Post by imperialWicket »

absconditus wrote: post #19

I have been working in QA for a few years now and have made several observations. * The people who are good at QA usually have the skills to work as a developer. QA is generally not as desirable as development to a young developer, so why do it? * Many QA people are almost completely useless and exist just to generate paperwork so that the company can cover its ass. Warning signs for bad QA people seem to be certific…

It is unfortunate how true these statements are. I followed to standard path of starting in QA and moving to development. While I do not think it's a bad path of itself, I think it is unfortunate that a lot of really great QA analysts hang up their QA title in order to develop. I think one of the core problems is that QA is treated as entry level; which is odd, because as you point out, most devs are practically incapable of testing effectively.

Even though most orgs do not officially treat the positions as an entry level (QA), and a mid-level (junior dev) - I think the general unspoken understanding is that devs are higher on the food chain. The two positions need to be established as more distinct and less like rungs in the same ladder.

Re: QA? We don't need no stinking QA

#46

Post by stan_rogers »

bitmage wrote: post #42

Ugh. I worked QA years ago and swore to never do it again. Management hates you because you're telling them the product is not ready to ship. Developers hate you because you're pointing out their errors. No one has your back, and everyone wants to blame you. The company had literally fired the whole testing department previously for saying the product wasn't ready. With those annoying testers out of the way, out the…

Ugh indeed. And it's not like this issue hasn't been mentioned a time or two before now. Joel Spolsky in 2000: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000067.html

...and again in 2010: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2010/01/26.html

...(with more than a couple of other mentions in between). I've worked at ISO 900x shops that worked to the letter of the law, so to speak, without actually understanding what software QA was all about. A really good tester is "chaotic neutral", and the best we can come up with as testers of our own work is "lawful evil".

Re: QA? We don't need no stinking QA

#48

Post by gamble »

imperialWicket wrote: post #45
absconditus wrote: post #19

I have been working in QA for a few years now and have made several observations. * The people who are good at QA usually have the skills to work as a developer. QA is generally not as desirable as development to a young developer, so why do it? * Many QA people are almost completely useless and exist just to generate paperwork so that the company can cover its ass. Warning signs for bad QA people seem to be certific…

It is unfortunate how true these statements are. I followed to standard path of starting in QA and moving to development. While I do not think it's a bad path of itself, I think it is unfortunate that a lot of really great QA analysts hang up their QA title in order to develop. I think one of the core problems is that QA is treated as entry level; which is odd, because as you point out, most devs are practically inca…

If it's hard to find good QA guys when there's a career path, it's even harder when there's a wall between dev and QA. QA is considered entry level in most companies because the jobs are entry level. Most companies barely value the monkeys-on-keyboards style of QA, much less the more skilled and better paying QA roles that would tempt smart people to stick with a career in QA.

Re: QA? We don't need no stinking QA

#49

Post by DanBC »

MartinCron wrote: post #27
kabdib wrote: post #7

On the other hand, I've seen QA groups who do no QA at all. Instead, they do frameworks. "We need a test framework" are terrifying words to me. It means that I (the dev) will have no one at my back. It means that tests will be written by junior QA engineers (the senior ones are off writing and maintaining the framework, right?). It means that I am responsible for my own tests, because /no one/ else besides the custom…

It means that I (the dev) will have no one at my back. Everyone should always code and test their code like that, right?

Like Boeing engineers sign off their own work when they're building aircraft. The test problem is well known in electronics manufacturing. When ISO900x and TQM etc is done right test & inspection are useful.

Re: QA? We don't need no stinking QA

#50

Post by silverbax88 »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #32
MartinCron wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means that I (the dev) will have no one at my back. Everyone should always code and test their code like that, right?

Eh, there's a difference between testing code you just wrote, and actual QA. I know my code, and I'll be testing for specific things, and I'll know what not to do. Our QA guy has no idea what I just did - so he's likely to uncover things I didn't think to check for.

Yeah, that's probably the first thing you learn when you start writing code in the corporate world - no matter how thoroughly you think you've tested your app, QA will break it almost immediately.

Very humbling.

Post reply on HN