Alas, better testing doesn’t *necessarily* lead to better software. But it can lead to better awareness of the state of the software. That in turn can help people to recognize problems in software, whereupon people can figure out how they might make it better.
This is why we must test the system, and not simply its components.
Problems emerge when components that work "perfectly" are imperfectly combined with other components that work "perfectly".
Software testers,
If using the software you're testing frustrates you,
THAT IS A TEST RESULT.
Your frustration may be an indicator of a problem, regardless of what the specifications say.
If something bugs you, it may also bug someone else.
Report what bugs you. 🪲
Sometimes testers say "there's no user interface; just an API". The API IS a user interface, for two classes of users: 1) other programs, and 2) developers who build them. So testing like a user means using the API as a developer might, both programmatically and interactively
1) There’s a common misconception about testing: that whatever we’ve tested, we must always test it again, every time, and forever. This misconception creates a bias in favour of fast, cheap, shallow, repeated tests. Yet variation is essential to broader and deeper coverage.
When a great leader, mentor, and friend dies, it’s like watching a great ship going over the horizon. It may be gone from our sight, but it’s still here in our memories and in the things that it brought to us.
Farewell, @JerryWeinberg. Farewell. Love and hugs to all his friends.
Automation is not something you DO. Automation is something you USE to get something important done. Thinking of *automation* as the thing that you do risks displacing attention from the quality of that important something that is your actual mission. #STAREAST
Signing Off - “I’m often given a product to test, but not enough time to test it. How am I supposed to sign off on the release when I haven’t tested enough?” @michaelbolton https://t.co/9A3FxDWWvt