1 |
On 05/10/2011 03:13 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
2 |
> So, why "more testing"? For starters, more *automatic* testing. Then |
3 |
> more testing as reports from testing can help greatly in identifying |
4 |
> when things break and why they break. As someone that looks over the |
5 |
> automatic stage building for amd64 and x86, and that has to talk to |
6 |
> teams / developers when things break, having more, more in depth and |
7 |
> regular automatic testing would help my (releng) job. |
8 |
While I agree whole-heartedly with the sentiment being expressed here, I |
9 |
just want to point out and remind everyone that automated testing is no |
10 |
substitute for real live people using (and breaking) things. People are |
11 |
remarkably inventive and creative when it comes to finding ways to break |
12 |
things in ways that the developers never even considered. |
13 |
|
14 |
All I'm trying to say is that I've seen (and worked on) far too many |
15 |
teams in the past that fell into the trap of thinking automated testing |
16 |
was sufficient. It isn't, but it certainly goes a long way towards |
17 |
helping make the manual tester's lives better, by letting them focus on |
18 |
finding those problems that aren't (for one reason or another) |
19 |
reproducible in an automated testing scenario. |
20 |
|
21 |
Later, |
22 |
Chris |