Why QA People always think to break my Application ?
-
But any how user will kik us, and also before that, QA people also kik us.. :laugh:
Gihan Liyanage http://gihansampathliyanage.wordpress.com
Think of it another way. If you do your job properly, they won't break it.
-
:sigh: " Let me break your Application " :(
Gihan Liyanage http://gihansampathliyanage.wordpress.com
Questionable Attitude (QA) do it just because they love making our lives miserable while giving themselves job security. :)
Have you ever just looked at someone and knew the wheel was turning but the hamster was dead?
-
:sigh: " Let me break your Application " :(
Gihan Liyanage http://gihansampathliyanage.wordpress.com
Its called testing
-
:sigh: " Let me break your Application " :(
Gihan Liyanage http://gihansampathliyanage.wordpress.com
I feel your pain. A good QA person should be all "MUAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!! I'm going to smash your application into elventy zillion little pieces. MUAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!" Non-motivated testers let lots of bugs into production; and they're never the people who get blamed when the big boss is doing a demo and something blows up in front of the customer.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt
-
:sigh: " Let me break your Application " :(
Gihan Liyanage http://gihansampathliyanage.wordpress.com
QA people are 'graded' on how many bugs they find... their job depends on it. So instead of working with you to ensure there are no bugs in the program, they do everything possible to invent problems that they can highlight just before release. It is really a bad situation. I don't have a solution... but umm... that's my opinion. I used to throw in some obvious low liars into my code, so they could write those up and not start questioning arbitrary things like, what happens if the end user is malicious and puts a stick of dynamite under the server room. Will the client gracefully shut down and save work locally until the server comes back up again? What about if the client computer is exploded too... is that redundant as well X|
-
QA people are 'graded' on how many bugs they find... their job depends on it. So instead of working with you to ensure there are no bugs in the program, they do everything possible to invent problems that they can highlight just before release. It is really a bad situation. I don't have a solution... but umm... that's my opinion. I used to throw in some obvious low liars into my code, so they could write those up and not start questioning arbitrary things like, what happens if the end user is malicious and puts a stick of dynamite under the server room. Will the client gracefully shut down and save work locally until the server comes back up again? What about if the client computer is exploded too... is that redundant as well X|
Pualee wrote:
QA people are 'graded' on how many bugs they find... their job depends on it.
This is just as bad as measuring dev's performance by number of lines of code. Fortunately this is not always the case :)
-- "My software never has bugs. It just develops random features."
-
:sigh: " Let me break your Application " :(
Gihan Liyanage http://gihansampathliyanage.wordpress.com
-
QA people are 'graded' on how many bugs they find... their job depends on it. So instead of working with you to ensure there are no bugs in the program, they do everything possible to invent problems that they can highlight just before release. It is really a bad situation. I don't have a solution... but umm... that's my opinion. I used to throw in some obvious low liars into my code, so they could write those up and not start questioning arbitrary things like, what happens if the end user is malicious and puts a stick of dynamite under the server room. Will the client gracefully shut down and save work locally until the server comes back up again? What about if the client computer is exploded too... is that redundant as well X|
Pualee wrote:
Will the client gracefully shut down and save work locally until the server comes back up again?
Of course, and it will automatically call in tech service to clean up the mess and fix it, and serve coffee and donuts to the users while they wait :-D
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
-
:sigh: " Let me break your Application " :(
Gihan Liyanage http://gihansampathliyanage.wordpress.com
If you've done your job correctly, they won't be able to break your system. If your entire team does its job correctly, and QA can't break anything at all, QA will be looking for work, and that's the real payoff! :-D
Will Rogers never met me.
-
QA people are 'graded' on how many bugs they find... their job depends on it. So instead of working with you to ensure there are no bugs in the program, they do everything possible to invent problems that they can highlight just before release. It is really a bad situation. I don't have a solution... but umm... that's my opinion. I used to throw in some obvious low liars into my code, so they could write those up and not start questioning arbitrary things like, what happens if the end user is malicious and puts a stick of dynamite under the server room. Will the client gracefully shut down and save work locally until the server comes back up again? What about if the client computer is exploded too... is that redundant as well X|
Cant they find bugs without hating the System ?
Gihan Liyanage http://gihansampathliyanage.wordpress.com
