Hacker News Reader

Comment by engrenage | Hacker News Reader

You are proposing QA as an alternative to writing tests. That makes no sense. They serve different purposes.

Nonsense. I am proposing QA teams and tools in addition to all of the other tools that a development team uses. If you, as a developer, are having a hard time testing something, ask QA how they would test it. Make sure they will be able to test it.

If after that interaction (or before) there is an easy way to construct your model such that this can be fully automated, do so. But, essentially, make sure you are working with QA.

This would be akin to a football team ignoring the special teams and not considering them in any decisions. Sure, if you have a perfect offence this will work. Most of us do not.

Edit: So, not sure why I began with "nonsense." Apologies for the tone on that.

So your comments have nothing to do with testing in clojure or even code level automated testing in general, and this is just you telling 'most developers' that you think they should work with QA more?

Well... I jumped in at the discussion pivot regarding the concern over "writing fewer tests" being difficult. My point was simply if you want some good leads on which tests you need to focus on, coordinate with QA. Development shops tend to work in isolation to QA. Often, there is a sense of hostility between the groups. This makes zero sense.

So, my point is to emphasis that all of the tools my direct pivot discussed were not necessarily created by the pilots/doctors/etc. Instead of the emphasis being on "having smart programmers that write lots of tests," lets move it to "having programmers that focus tests on problematic areas with insite gained from other teams."

(That make sense?)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com