41–50 of 160 posts
This rings so many bells that it feels like some Buddhist festival. Apply the same approach to QA, Operations, and anything outside the actual product development: when this arrogance was shared between bosses and developers, all good on their side. Now with the AI, the arrogance is staying only on the bosses' side, and we have developers freaking out.
100% and I’m a software developer and have been for ~30 years. Good QA people know how to find regression and bugs _that you didn’t think about_ which is the whole reason why it shouldn’t be under “engineering” and that it should exist. One of the QA people I work with currently is one of my favorite people. They don’t always make me happy (in the moment) with their bugs or with how they decide to break the software,…
More importantly, it is almost impossible for engineers to be as well incentivized to spend extra time exploring edge cases in something they already believe to work than to ship a feature on time.
Like everything else though, its contextual. Complexity of domain, surface area and age of product, depth of experience on team and consequences of failure are all so variable that there cannot be only one answer.
I have done it both ways for many years. I have worked on teams where QA is a frustrating nuisance, and teams where they were critical to success. I have worked on teams that did pretty good without them, and probably those were the highest throughput, most productive teams because the engineers were forced to own all the consequences - every bug they shipped was a production issue they were immediately forced to track down and resolve.
But those were very small teams, and eventually I was the only founding engineer left on the team and far too many mistakes by other people made it to my desk because I was the only person who could find them in review or track them down quickly in production. That was when I started hiring QA people.
100% and I’m a software developer and have been for ~30 years. Good QA people know how to find regression and bugs _that you didn’t think about_ which is the whole reason why it shouldn’t be under “engineering” and that it should exist. One of the QA people I work with currently is one of my favorite people. They don’t always make me happy (in the moment) with their bugs or with how they decide to break the software,…
Yes, QA is important. My code will always "work" in that everything I tested is bug free. But having someone other test, especially someone who knows the service is gold. But there is also bad QA: The most worthless QA I was forced to work with, was an external company, where I, as developer, had to write the test sheet and they just tested that. Obviously they could not find bugs as I tested everything on the sheet.…
Developers are liars. Why would I trust them to test their software?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, QA is important. My code will always "work" in that everything I tested is bug free. But having someone other test, especially someone who knows the service is gold. But there is also bad QA: The most worthless QA I was forced to work with, was an external company, where I, as developer, had to write the test sheet and they just tested that. Obviously they could not find bugs as I tested everything on the sheet.…
I do think the type of testing where QA just follows pre-generated script has place. But it is about long term regression. The first round absolutely should not find anything. But with complex system it also should find nothing in a year or three or five years... Offloading this to dedicate resource could be useful in certain industries.
"Before I weigh in further, I’d like to make sure you’re familiar with the testing pyramid." The testing pyramid is a par excellance SWE kool-aid. Someone wrote a logically-sounding blogpost about it many years ago and then people started regurgitating it without any empirical evidence behind it. Many of us have realised that you need a "testing hourglass", not a "testing pyramid". Unit tests are universally consider…
I’ve had quite a bit of success in helping my dev teams to own quality, devising and writing their own test cases, maintaining test pipelines, running bug hunts, etc. 90% of this can be attributed to treating developers as my customer, for whom I build software products which allow them to be more productive.
"Before I weigh in further, I’d like to make sure you’re familiar with the testing pyramid." The testing pyramid is a par excellance SWE kool-aid. Someone wrote a logically-sounding blogpost about it many years ago and then people started regurgitating it without any empirical evidence behind it. Many of us have realised that you need a "testing hourglass", not a "testing pyramid". Unit tests are universally consider…
the vertical axis is not test type. It is would you run the test. At the bottom are deterministic fast tests for something completely unrelated to what you are working on - but they are so easy/fast you run them anyway 'just in case'. As you move up you get tests that you more and more want to aviod running. Tests that take a long time, tests that randomly fail when nothing is wrong, tests that need some settup, tests that need some expensive license (i can't think of more now but I'm sure there are).
You want to drive everything down as far as possible, but there is value in tests that are higher so you won't get rid of it. Just remember as soon you get to the 'make would run this test but I'm skipping it for now because it is annoying' line you need a seperate process to ensure the test is eventually run - you are trading off speed now for the risk that the test will find something and it is 10x harder to fix when you get there - when a test is run all the time you know what caused the failure and can go right there, while later means you did several things and have forgotten details. 10x is an estimate, depending where in your process you put it it could be 100 or even 1000 times harder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Good QA people know how to find regression and bugs _that you didn’t think about_ which is the whole reason why it shouldn’t be under “engineering” I don’t understand the reasoning here why QA shouldn’t be engineering.
> I don’t understand the reasoning here why QA shouldn’t be engineering. Who watches the watcher, right? That aside, the core idea is the same as the principles of independent audit, peer review, or even simply just specialization. Red team / Blue team?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If engineering owns quality, it ought to also own the liability, too. That would put the damper on the pipe dream pretty quick. Probably more healthily than any data center ban could ever do. If engineers were licensed, bonded, and liable, things would go very differently. * speaking as having been a practicing software “engineer” for a decade
Applies to making bread or brain surgery. Sometimes things go wrong and people are accounted for. But since CEOs, or any other bosses, need to make a living, they will eat the liability in exchange for wealth, and leave engineering in the dust.
I think the same patterns can be applied here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don’t understand the reasoning here why QA shouldn’t be engineering. Who watches the watcher, right? That aside, the core idea is the same as the principles of independent audit, peer review, or even simply just specialization. Red team / Blue team?
Yes but both the red team and blue team would still be engineering.
Even the military have police, right?
edit: ultimately, it comes down to the importance of independent audit, the builders and the breaker/fixers are very different groups in engineering.