Sure James. Thanks.By any chance will you be covering the topic - What Google really looks for, when hiring testers?
Since I had the honor of having my last, deliberately dramatic, comment included in this post I feel I should make some sort of reply.First of all I am glad that you took the opportunity to clarify the newfound direction of the testing strategy over at Google, it obviously works well for you. I am also happy to see you confess that this direction leads to the conclusion that devs actually can test, and succeed in doing so. You have to understand my confusion since it kind of has been your M.O. to argue the exact opposite.Having said that, I have given this some thought and I think can actually agree on that what we see here is progress. Although in my, admittedly not very long, career as a Test Engineer I’ve met many devs who I would never want to see as testers, they simply care too little. So I guess one of the challenges would be to structure an organization so that devs actually do care. Which is precisely what you have been describing in your posts. But, and here comes a little confession from me as well, testers must also be proficient at coding stuff. And to be honest, that is what scares me. I didn’t sign up for that. But I’m learning more and more and I think it can be quite fun some times (definitely not all the time.) Heck, I don’t know, perhaps the future for testers in this new way of thinking is bright after all, as long as one keeps it in mind from the start and managers hire testers with documented coding knowledge. People on every level of an organization have to understand and embrace these changes if they are going to be implemented successfully.Lastly, I would like to add that I have never “hated” developers in the true sense of the word. (They give me work, right?) The importance of having a team where all members strive towards the same goal, which is to make a good product, is undoubted. I’ve never deviated from that conviction. It’s just that in some cases it takes superior intrapersonal skills to also convince the devs ;)I’m looking forward to the continuation of these posts, which I will follow with interest, fear, confusion and contemplativeness.Peace
Hi,Reading your blogposts gives me an impression that it's not long when we hear of a book titled "How we test software at Google" coming from you.Should you decide to write one or are in the process I may want to book a copy in advance. Thanks :-)Raj Ahuja
Great set of posts, looking forward to more. I would be interested to know how you incorporate requirements into testing. We all know that poor requirements leads to poor products, but we've found here, that scripting the tests leads us to improving the requirements dramatically (filling in the gaps, adding clarification).Also, I see in your post that it seems that TE's can pull the cord (to stop the train, so to speak?) I like that concept but do your TEs have that independence? Here, testing reports into Development so there is a real sense of lack of independence. In your grid reporting structure, do your TEs and SETs have that independence?What level of experience are the SETs and do you cycle SWE and SETs? You should probably hire Maggi - you can't train passion.
I think a good tester is who can be converted into developer at anytime and vice-versa.After all I think Software Engineer and Software Engineer In Test are just one good programmer wearing different hats.Glad to see Google are blending testers and developers!
I'm really surprised with the comments about your posts. When I read the last posts I thought I couldn't agree more about you.To me a good day is when I found a bug after some hard working hours. This means Developers worked well. Sometimes our Developers ask us for help on their own tests.Quality doesn't belong to Testers. Quality belongs to all involved in a product development. And when everyone starts thinking this way we got more Quality.I'm sure that Google is a wonderful place to work as a Tester.
My two cents: when dev can "throw code over the wall" to test - they have no incentive for quality. Their deliverable is functionality delivered to QA. QA's deliverable becomes Quality, but this is impossible to "test quality in" to the product. So you get a broken system and hostile environment.When development is responsible for their own testing, suddenly they have an incentive for quality. If QA is embedded with the developers, the developers can ask QA to help them improve their testing (and in turn, their quality).
Hi james.Your interesting articles let me make a decision that translate your article into korean and post on my blog to spread your article. Also, I know that it needs your permission. I promiss it will be strictly informational, not a commercial purposes.As like meggi said, Google is a nice place to testers in korea too, so many people in korea would have interest with your articles. Please, Let them have a chance to access your article more easily. I ‘m looking forward your positive reply. Thanks.PS> If you mind leaving your comment here, please e-mail me to: firstname.lastname@example.org Thanks.
Great post. I am a developer but I want to learn more and more about testing. I do have one question that I would like to see what everyone's opinion on is. I seem to read alot about how I can write "better" code my making it more testable. While I agree to some degree I don't think that by just having a more testable code base for example the quality of the design of that code is necessarily increased. What do you think?
I am one of the few who transitioned through the ranks of software development. I started in support, moved to QA, and then to Development. I will say that I was a better tester before I moved to development. Now when testing others items I find myself thinking along the testing lines of how I would have coded it . This can be limiting. However - I think it's a bonus when I am coding as I think about the what if's and what the user can do versus what the user will do.
The comments you read and contribute here belong only to the person who posted them. We reserve the right to remove off-topic comments.