Problem identities among testers

 3r33856. 3r3-31. Problem identities among testers 3r33841. 3r33838.  3r33856. The following are problem individuals in the quality assurance department (QA): 3r3-3830.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33832.  3r33856.
3r33655. Fire hose
3r33842.  3r33856.
3r33750. Prosecutor
3r33842.  3r33856.
3r33434. Alarmist
3r33842.  3r33856.
Scientist 3r33842.  3r33856.
3r3306. Misleading
3r33842.  3r33856.
Oppressed 3r33842.  3r33856.
Random clicker 3r33842.  3r33856.
3r33526. Blithely cheeky
3r33842.  3r33856. 3r33844. 3r33838.  3r33856. alarmist 3r33842.  3r33856.
Dangerous in conjunction with a project manager type 3r-33432. statistician
3r33842.  3r33856.
Likelihood of correction: high 3r3829. 3r33842.  3r33856.
Danger for the project: [b] high 3r3829. 3r33842.  3r33856. 3r33844. 3r33770. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33812. Problem
3r33838.  3r33856. If a bug is found, it is important to make a clear report and immediately assign it to the appropriate developer. However, some testers are able to find bugs faster than the development team fixes them. Because of this, the list of bugs is constantly growing, and all of them can never be closed. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. At first glance it may seem that there is a problem with the quality of the product, but this is not always the case. Unlike the usual tester, which works with a very buggy program, the fire hose generates an avalanche of reports with one or several characteristic properties: 3r33030.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33832.  3r33856.
Their reports are poorly detailed, allowing for faster reporting of more errors. 3r33842.  3r33856.
Many bugs are duplicates of others, as they are only variations of one main reason. 3r33842.  3r33856.
There is no time to reproduce the error, since writing a report is enough to see it once. 3r33842.  3r33856. 3r33844. 3r33838.  3r33856. Fire hose type testers often appear under direct or indirect pressure from a company: [b] the more mistakes you find, the better you do your work
. This leads to the fact that QA testers, who diligently track the actual root cause of errors and report them clearly and briefly, are considered less productive than fire hoses that produce the maximum number of reports per unit of time. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. The activities of such testers can cause panic on the project, because it seems that the product is of poor quality, and the project is now behind schedule. Their impact on morale can be immediate and dramatic: the development team is begging to interrupt the flow of bug reports. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33812. Solution
3r33838.  3r33856. Before fixing the fire hose, it is vital to identify it precisely and not to confuse it with an effective QA that has encountered a very buggy system. The clearest proof is given by the complaints of the developers: 3r33030.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33832.  3r33856.
Most errors are duplicates. 3r33842.  3r33856.
Many bugs have the same obvious root causes, so they could be reported as one bug. 3r33842.  3r33856.
Error messages do not contain details. 3r33842.  3r33856. 3r33844. 3r33838.  3r33856. To remedy the situation, the fire hose should be explained that there is no incentive to report a large number of errors, and the goal is to improve the quality of the system and help the developers. After that, the quality of the product should be improved at the same (or better) pace, but without panic. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. alarmist 3r33842.  3r33856.
Dangerous in conjunction with a project manager type 3r-33432. statistician
3r33842.  3r33856.
Likelihood of correction: high 3r3829. 3r33842.  3r33856.
Danger for the project: [b] low
3r33842.  3r33856. 3r33844. 3r33770. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33812. Problem
3r33838.  3r33856. Theoretically, the developer can find and fix any bug before transferring the product to the QA department. Therefore, some testers perceive each error found as further proof that developers are not testing their work sufficiently. This irrefutable argument allows the prosecutor to even more loudly speak dismissive opinion about the development team. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. The prosecutor eats away the morale of the team. Instead of helping to improve the quality of the product, he tries to prove that the development team is not coping with the work. Each mistake is added to a pile of evidence that developers rely excessively on QA instead of detecting bugs themselves. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. Unfortunately, accusers are created as a result of a typical and fairly predictable process: 3r-3330.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33737.  3r33856.
Critical error detected in production. 3r33842.  3r33856.
The tester is blamed for missing this bug. 3r33842.  3r33856. 3r33737. 3r33838.  3r33856. This happens too often, and therefore QA naturally protects itself by using an irrefutable argument. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33812. Solution
3r33838.  3r33856. Before correcting the prosecutor, the organization must first stop blaming the QA for production bugs. Whoever does this needs to be taught more productive methods to improve the quality of the software. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. When the organization has ceased to reproach QA for the bugs in the production, you can fix the tester, the prosecutor, asking him to change his opinion and his attitude. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. It should be brought to him that the developers are just people, and all people are mistaken. The QA department should compensate for this natural human property of the developers, acting as protection against errors affecting customers. In addition, due to the tedious and tedious process of coding, it is very easy for a developer not to see the forest behind the trees: he is so focused on solving a specific problem that he forgets to check seemingly obvious things. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. Changing attitudes: you need to remember that we all work as a team, Comrades should not blame each other for making mistakes, but should help correct them for the benefit of the team. For QA, it is especially important to establish partnerships with the development team for the sake of the project, and the uninterrupted process of identifying bugs, reporting and the life cycle of their correction is crucial for the quality of the product. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. fire hose 3r33842.  3r33856.
Dangerous in conjunction with the project manager type 3r32r. pessimist
3r33842.  3r33856.
Likelihood of correction: high 3r3829. 3r33842.  3r33856.
Danger for the project: [b] high 3r3829. 3r33842.  3r33856. 3r33844. 3r33770. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33812. Problem
3r33838.  3r33856. At its core, different functions of the application have different quality. Some may be relatively simple or developed by highly skilled developers, and therefore there are few or no errors. Others are relatively complex or developed by less experienced developers - and, therefore, are full of bugs. Paniker was not lucky to immediately encounter an area of ​​poor quality - and he was [b] without any additional research, announced that the whole product is unfit
. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. There is a lot of talk about how QA tires developers and waste their time (see type tester 3r3306. Misleading 3r34141.), But here is a twofold situation. In fact, too often the developer deliberately gives poorly tested software to QA in order to receive remuneration for the work done or to declare that he has met the deadline. When QA starts testing such a system, it immediately encounters a lot of errors that the developer should have seen. Therefore, it is clear that he extrapolates what he saw on the whole product and declares a critically low quality. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. The alarmist usually has some authority in the QA department, and his opinion is respected. The higher the level of his authority, the more damaging the influence on the project. A typical scenario is as follows:
 3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33832.  3r33856.
The product is transferred to QA. 3r33842.  3r33856.
The alarmist begins testing the area of ​​terrible quality. 3r33842.  3r33856.
The alarmist stops all testing and informs the authorities about a serious problem with the quality of the product. 3r33842.  3r33856. 3r33844. 3r33838.  3r33856. This is a classic case of throwing a baby away with water. Sometimes QA makes the right choice, especially when the development team has a reputation for transmitting untested software to QA. But it happens that the alarm is raised because of one weak developer, whose code was first caught by the alarmist. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33812. Solution
3r33838.  3r33856. The tester becomes alarmist if he is repeatedly let down by the development team. If she had always supplied high-quality software, there would be no reason for distrust. But if the tester has become a panic attacker, the development team will find it difficult to regain confidence, especially if there are indeed 3r33838 developers on the team. Elephant in a china shop
and 3r33340. incompetent
. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. As a rule, in large development teams, poor quality code is caused by individual developers, and not the entire team. Therefore, it is imperative that the work of less competent developers be tested as a last resort or that it does not fall into alarmist. However, this hides the true problem that the team has 3r33835. developers who negatively affect the project
. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33352. 3r33841. 3r3738. Scientist 3r3739. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r3742. 3r33737. A tester who spends most of his time documenting errors and not finding new ones. 3r3744. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33832.  3r33856.
May mutate in oppressed 3r33842.  3r33856.
Dangerous in combination with a product manager of type 3r3366060. The author of the patent 3r33838. 3r33842.  3r33856.
Likelihood of correction: high 3r3829. 3r33842.  3r33856.
Danger for the project: [b] low
3r33842.  3r33856. 3r33844. 3r33770. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33812. Problem
3r33838.  3r33856. Finding problems in the system can be as fun as treasure hunting. And when you find this treasure, it is no less interesting to solve the puzzle. It can be argued that a tester who considers the process of finding errors in this way is perfect. But there is a problem if he seeks to carefully document his fascinating journey. Instead of focusing on the underlying problem, the developer is forced to read a long story with a lot of useless details, trying to select relevant information. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. A scientist literally perceives the requirement to “carefully document bugs”. He describes them as a textual story, rather than a brief description with a clear sequence of steps to reproduce. Reading such reports takes a very long time, and in the end it is still unclear exactly what the problem is. Typically, such a description includes several bugs, while referring to a wide area of ​​the system, and not to a specific problem. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. The main complaint from developers when receiving error messages from scientists is that the signal-to-noise ratio is too low. They spend time sifting through the stream of consciousness, looking for specific details. This is a waste of time for both the developer and the tester. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33812. Solution
3r33838.  3r33856. A QA scientist is easy to fix by teaching him to write correct reports. Often, a correction happens instantly, as soon as he is explained what is required of him. The most effective way to learn the right style is to rewrite one or more reports in the correct format that serves as a model for the future. As a result, an enthusiastic tester will write clear and concise error reports that cannot be made more perfect. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. alarmist 3r33842.  3r33856.
Dangerous in conjunction with a project manager type 3r-33432. statistician
3r33842.  3r33856.
Likelihood of correction: high 3r3829. 3r33842.  3r33856.
Danger for the project: [b] high 3r3829. 3r33842.  3r33856. 3r33844. 3r33770. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33812. Problem
3r33838.  3r33856. The error report should include the following: 3r33830.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33737.  3r33856.
The ability to determine that there is actually a
error.  3r33856.
The ability to determine steps to reproduce the bug
 3r33856.
A holistic description of the error, often with an indication of the root cause of 3r33842.  3r33856.
Clear steps to reproduce the bug
 3r33856. 3r33737. 3r33838.  3r33856. At any of these stages, the report may be misleading to the developer, as a result of which he will waste time: 3r33030.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33832.  3r33856.
If there is no error, the developer spends time searching for a problem that does not exist.  3r33856.
If the error cannot be reproduced, the developer spends time reproducing it.  3r33856.
If the error is not properly described, the developer spends time searching for a very specific or too broad root cause.  3r33856.
If the steps to reproduce are inaccurate, the developer spends time trying to interpret them, or may declare an absence of a bug, although it is 3r34242.  3r33856. 3r33844. 3r33838.  3r33856. Sometimes a developer gets confused because of a simple tester error. But a misleading tester often generates such reports, causing considerable dissatisfaction among developers. If the situation continues, the tester will eventually lose the confidence of the developers, and they will stop correcting even real bugs, rejecting such error reports. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33812. Solution
3r33838.  3r33856. Misleading QA is often good at finding bugs, only badly documents them. Therefore it is worth the effort to train him. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. One of the most effective methods is to observe the developer, who, on the basis of his report, tries to identify the problem. It is enough just to sit next to the developer who received one of his reports, and calmly observe (without intervention) how the developer is trying to figure it out. This will usually lead to a healthy conversation about how to better report bugs, which will benefit both the developer and QA. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33512. 3r33841. 3r3738. Oppressed
3r33838.  3r33856. 3r3742. 3r33737. QA, which has been beaten by the developers to such an extent that it hardly reports any errors for fear of being bullied on their part. 3r3744. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33832.  3r33856.
May mutate in 3r33526. carelessly daring
3r33842.  3r33856.
It is dangerous in combination with the developers of types 3r3755. prima donna
and 3r?382. hostage taker
3r33842.  3r33856.
Likelihood of correction: [b] low
3r33842.  3r33856.
Danger for the project: low 3r33842.  3r33856. 3r33844. 3r33770. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33812. Problem
3r33838.  3r33856. Perhaps there is no greater indulgence than the typical attitude of developers towards QA. In addition, it is often possible to see that aggressive developers openly intimidate the tester, even if he reports a natural error in their code. To counter this, a successful QA when dealing with aggressive developers should have the following characteristics: 3r3-3830.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33832.  3r33856.
Already won a great confidence of developers, so his bugs are always taken seriously. 3r33842.  3r33856.
Able to show no less aggression and perseverance in a dispute with a developer who does not recognize a bug. 3r33842.  3r33856. 3r33844. 3r33838.  3r33856. Unfortunately, not many testers have such characteristics, so developers often wipe their feet about them and first of all accuse QA of finding a new bug. No matter how illogical this may seem, but such is the typical picture in the following conditions: 3r3-3830.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33832.  3r33856.
The developer has a high sense of self-importance (see developer type 3r3755. Prima donna
) 3r33842.  3r33856.
The developer believes that he knows much better than the tester how the system works (see developer of type 3r33582. Hostage-taker 3r33841.) 3r3-33842.  3r33856. 3r33844. 3r33838.  3r33856. After a QA is thoroughly beaten for a long time, he usually avoids confrontation with hostile developers to reduce the level of stress. As a result, the bugs of these particular developers are rarely reported, although they may exist. As a rule, a situation is discovered only when there are problems in production and an investigation begins, why the testing department did not reveal a bug. The oppressed tester will provide any of the following explanations: 3r33830.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33832.  3r33856.
He spoke with the developer, and he said that this was not a mistake. 3r33842.  3r33856.
He submitted an error report, but the developer rejected it. 3r33842.  3r33856.
He found a mistake, but "did not think that it was important enough." 3r33842.  3r33856. 3r33844. 3r33838.  3r33856. A passive character often makes it difficult to recognize a depressed QA. The key will be the analysis of the developers with whom this QA works - the search for obvious signs of hostility. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33812. Solution
3r33838.  3r33856. Developers often very often mock testers. Thus, they should be dealt with as with any hooligans: 3r3-3830.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33832.  3r33856.
To demand to immediately stop mocking QA and refrain from aggressive behavior. 3r33842.  3r33856.
Teach professional communication. 3r33842.  3r33856.
Dismiss if the developer cannot correct his behavior. 3r33842.  3r33856. 3r33844. 3r33838.  3r33856. In severe cases, it will be necessary for the personnel department to intervene, especially if the situation has degraded into open hostility. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. Sadly, this situation is the norm rather than the exception. The only difference is in the degree of hostility. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. fire hose 3r33842.  3r33856.
Dangerous in combination with a product manager of type 3r3366060. The author of the patent 3r33838. 3r33842.  3r33856.
Likelihood of correction: low 3r33842.  3r33856.
Danger for the project: low 3r33842.  3r33856. 3r33844. 3r33770. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33812. Problem
3r33838.  3r33856. The search for bugs in the system is carried out by two main methods: 3r33830.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33737.  3r33856.
According to the test plan by the methodical processing of the list of test cases. 3r33842.  3r33856.
Random walk through the application in an attempt to emulate user actions. 3r33842.  3r33856. 3r33737. 3r33838.  3r33856. Writing a test plan is a time consuming task, and there is no guarantee that by the time testing starts, the plan will still be relevant after changing requirements. This may lead the tester to completely abandon the test plans, and instead simply interacts with the application in the hope of finding bugs. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. Indeed, in case of random interaction with the application, errors are detected, especially at the early stage of product development. However, as the product matures, it will be much more difficult to find errors in this way, since the remaining bugs are hidden in borderline cases. This leads to a false sense of security, as if the application has no bugs, although it was simply not tested properly. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. It is important to remember that random interaction with the application is still a valid methodology, as it can reveal situations that are not documented in the plan. But this is only an addition to the test plan, not a replacement. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33812. Solution
3r33838.  3r33856. A random clicker may appear in one of two cases: 3r33830.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33737.  3r33856.
He was not taught how to properly test the application. 3r33842.  3r33856.
He actively avoids writing a test plan. 3r33842.  3r33856. 3r33737. 3r33838.  3r33856. If the problem is lack of training, then you need to ensure it. However, in this case, the tester can still fall into the second category, not wanting to make a test plan, even if he knows that he has to do it. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. To write a good test plan requires a rare level of organization, diligence and concentration. As a result, certain types of people enjoy such work, but most do not. If you are very lucky, the random clicker will show the characteristics needed to write good test plans, but the probability is low. 3r33838.  3r33856. 3r33838.  3r33856. "Problem personalities among developers" 3r33842.  3r33856.
3r33840. "Problem personalities among project managers" 3-3-33841. 3r33842.  3r33856. 3r33844. 3r33852. 3r33856. 3r33856. 3r33856. 3r33849. ! function (e) {function t (t, n) {if (! (n in e)) {for (var r, a = e.document, i = a.scripts, o = i.length; o-- ;) if (-1! == i[o].src.indexOf (t)) {r = i[o]; break} if (! r) {r = a.createElement ("script"), r.type = "text /jаvascript", r.async =! ? r.defer =! ? r.src = t, r.charset = "UTF-8"; var d = function () {var e = a.getElementsByTagName ("script")[0]; e.parentNode.insertBefore (r, e)}; "[object Opera]" == e.opera? a.addEventListener? a.addEventListener ("DOMContentLoaded", d,! 1): e.attachEvent ("onload", d ): d ()}}} t ("//mediator.mail.ru/script/2820404/"""_mediator") () (); 3r33850. 3r33856. 3r33852. 3r33856. 3r33856. 3r33856. 3r33856.
+ 0 -

Add comment