Yahoo’s Engineers Move to Coding Without a QA Team
Surprised to see the negativity here. I have worked in environments with traditional manual QA, and environments where all development is test-driven and nobody is allowed to merge a feature that lacks automated test coverage.<p>Both the productivity and the quality were higher in the places with fully automated testing. Which is not shocking at all: does anybody really think a human can run through 800 test cases better than a computer can?<p>It's not a magic way to save money -- the developers obviously end up spending time writing tests. But the long-term value of those tests is cumulative, whereas the effort spent on manual testing is spent anew every release.<p>Manual review is still good for noticing things that "feel wrong" or for helping think up new corner cases. But those bleed into product owner & design concerns, and aren't really a separate function.