What a developer wants?

After so many years of driving testing and QA processes I have some possibilities to realize and rights to publish here some of ideas on how things are working from the inside. One of such things is what developers ask of a QA manager.

My top 5 are following:

1. Change defect tracking system

2. Stop reporting duplicates and non-defects

3. Do no find defects too late

4. Stop reporting minor/cosmetic defects in such a number

5. Test design is not review-able

Now back to the details =)

Change the defects tracking system I am always happy when people come to me with their ideas which they think will help them doing their work better. However, I don't like when it stems from the "I don't know what is wrong but I feel that something needs to be changed" intention.

In the past, developers came to me complaining that it takes too much time to work with defects. The only solution they saw was to change the tracking system. I asked in respond what exactly does take time when they work with it. As it turned out the reason of their complaints is not in the system per se but in the time they had to spend understanding the defect and trying to reproduce it. No defect tracking system can change that, so they went out in peace with the idea to leave the old system. Others developers came after... period =)

Stop reporting duplicates and non-defects Yes, this is a problem. But let's see how big it is. On my memory we reported not more than 1% of bad defects. Is that so huge to be whining about at each managers meeting? Nope. Then what was it?... I'll tell you. This is an excuse for not doing own job right. Kind of "hey! they also have problems". It makes them look better in they eyes. What a shame! =)

Do no find defects too late Another problem for testers. We have to find serious problems as soon as they appear in the code. There is no excuse... Wait a minute! What issue are speaking about? That one that developers introduced in the same build? How do you think testers could find it earlier?... We hear such acquisitions too many times. Make sure you take the blame for your own mistakes.

Stop reporting minor/cosmetic defects in such a number The answer is "stop reading them". It's easy =)

Test design is not review-able In majority of cases they just don't care to put some efforts in this. This is merely a laziness that cannot be an excuse :) However, providing a summary of your tests design is always helpful. Remember, those who read your design help you making it better, so it's in your interest to make it easier to them.

What makes a Good tester?

Everyone can easily say a good tester from a not as good one. A good tester finds more quality defects. But what makes one to be good tester? What is the difference that helps identifying important sound bugs faster?

First is technique. A good tester knows what the weak points about the application are. If it accepts a text for the input and produces a tagged text as the output, then most likely the issues will start popping up if you feed it a large volume of text. If it ate it successfully then change the text to something developer would not expect for the input. This is a sort of destructive thinking that helped my son breaking seemingly unbreakable toys when he was from 3 to 5. Thinking in categories "what else people usually omit?" helps finding more defects faster.

Second difference is the feeling of urgency. A good tester will explore entire functionality of the application rather than focusing on a small part of it. In result, the number of defects and the severity of defects is usually higher than quantity and quality of defects produced by testers bogged down into details of a specific dialogue. Likewise, a tester who focused on functionality will produce more quality issues than a person who is too deep into UI testing. Small issues reported early in the testing when application is full or crashes may make developers and project manager go mad. You are very likely to hear: "What are you thinking about?" So, better start from beginning and focus on how system works. Of course they may be exceptions. For example, it may be not reasonable to test a part of functionality and get back to it later. Anyway, if it does not cost too much I would rather recommend focusing on what matters now.

Third difference is level of expertise. A good tester can quickly imagine in which way a new functionality can affect the existing one. Knowledge about system functional and structural dependencies can help finding integration issues. Such issues usually have heavy consequence, so they are rated as critical.

Forth difference is seeing it all as a whole. A good tester always finds out how the functionality is supposed to be used and tries it on realistic tasks. There is no need to remind what use case or end-to-end testing is. This is all natural for a highly skilled testing professional to think of what real user is supposed to do with a system. It also helps finding usability issues. Recommendations on how to make system better are always welcome!

I wish all testers around would be good ones. Hopefully this article will help some of the readers to become one :)