This is so often misunderstood. Daily I'm trying to eliminate swaths of tests to get the most out of the time testing.
When I work with others on the automation being written I ask what is this testing for and the answer is often specific to the incident and not the issue. Which prevents a generic test to catch other case.
We haven't had good review of failure analysis and have spent so much time updating these "incident" tests I don't really believe the claim that they have found bugs.
But I do have bias because I like to evaluate risk of an issue reoccurring, severity if it happens, cost to maintain the test due to routine changes of a release.
Auth With Twitter
Auth With GitHub
re: STOP! Automating everything for "regression" is a waste of time VIEW POST
FULL DISCUSSIONThis is so often misunderstood. Daily I'm trying to eliminate swaths of tests to get the most out of the time testing.
When I work with others on the automation being written I ask what is this testing for and the answer is often specific to the incident and not the issue. Which prevents a generic test to catch other case.
I would love to know, do these incident specific tests catch regressions?
I would love to know that too.
We haven't had good review of failure analysis and have spent so much time updating these "incident" tests I don't really believe the claim that they have found bugs.
But I do have bias because I like to evaluate risk of an issue reoccurring, severity if it happens, cost to maintain the test due to routine changes of a release.
That's been the rub. The people doing the work typically are not looking at the big picture and likely find it difficult to think that way.