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