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.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?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.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.