A lot of my work is about making sense into the testing we do, and figuring out the quality of testing. The management challenge with testing is that after they come to terms in investing in it, it isn't obvious if the investment is worth it. Surely, the teams do testing. But do they do it so that it provides the results we expect? Faking testing isn't particularly hard, and the worst part is that a lot of the existing processes encourage faking testing over testing that provides results. With an important launch, or an important group of customers we're building a business with, we don't want to be surprised in scale or type of issues we have never even discussed before.
I find myself in hunt of two aspects of quality in testing: effectiveness and efficiency.
Effectiveness is the idea that no matter what the testing we do is, does it give us the layers we need to not be caught red-handed with our customers? To be effective at testing, we have two main approaches:
- Build well - bad testing won't make quality worse
- Test well - when issues emerge, finding them would be good