How can you ensure the QA team understands software architecture?

If you have a separate "QA team" and not a Quality persona embedded in the team for the software's entire lifecycle, you are doing QA wrong :-)

I believe a software professional should have a more of holistic approach to understand products, applications, network, system infra and the app security aspects. Another quintessential aspect is to understand the objective and the utility which will help a good s/w professional to validate the application very well. Thus it becomes a table stake for a top of the line s/w professional to have an understanding of the underlying architecture, data flow etc. Good or bad, the system accepts various grades of software professionals based on the need or demand again.

QA should understand Architecture is not about writing Textual Book Rather it's defined in Pictorial/UML/SYSML/PLANTML/Model. They should always take help from Architects to understand how the architecture relates to Business and Product Requirement.

You don't - There is no WiiFM for the QA team. WiiFM is What's in it For Me. If you do, learn the motivation, the Why, and learn how to sell the benefits. I can test a car without knowing how an automatic transmission works.

If you think like you can bring QA up to speed after everything is implemented, its NOT going to work. You will never be able to explain all the architectural decisions and nuances to QA over an enablement session after the product development is completed. Rather QA should be involved right from the word GO, work closely during the design and implementation phase with the developers, that way they will be able to come up with scenarios covering all corner cases and the result - a ROBUST application.

When reviewing a software architecture, it's beneficial to have the capability to visualize the incoming and outgoing data flow as well.

As a result of the review the QA should be able to provide the non-functional requirements which they will test after the development is completed. QAs should focus on corner cases and verify architecture approach towards them. It is absolutely necessary for QA to be able to check if the system follows architecture. E.g. We can integrate w systems with direct SQL queries to DBs, or we can integrate with a data broker. Both solutions will work, but only one will follow design. QA process should be able to find GAPs between the documentation and the solution. QAs' architecture review needs to focus not only on understanding the solution but also on answering the question what and how to verify if the architecture is properly implemented.

An overview of the architecture is not sufficient for them to function. We need to ensure that every component is well covered, we must examine their component test plan. We also need to review their testing activity in the first phase. We also need to assess the number of outstanding issues that the customer has pointed up that are connected to the architecture knowledge cab. These procedures should aid in ensuring that QA is aware of our architecture.

Architecture documentation serves as the foundation, and its accessibility is crucial. A centralized location ensures everyone is on the same page. The collaborative aspect with QA input not only enhances understanding but also contributes to a more robust testing approach. It's not just a document; it's a dynamic guide for the entire software journey.

Now the era of separation of QA, Product analyst and consultant has gone way as automated testing is in place. The person has designed the product feature should do the QA also so that all the functional and technical requirements (NFA) have been met. Secondly, some companies still have QA department. In such cases, the QA team selection process should also crucial from understanding the the technical aspects. Existing QA team members should been given a training on technical architecture and should be involved the design process.

To ensure the QA team understands the software architecture, you can use mindmaps for a high-level overview and sequence diagrams for flow clarity alongside your testing tools like Taskfile, Playwright, Cypress, and Hurl. Store test outputs, including Snyk and SonarQube scans, in ArangoDB and present them through a custom dashboard that supports real-time monitoring and data analysis. Equip the team with proper training and encourage collaborative use of these tools for a profound understanding and efficient software architecture and quality management. We have added this "visual" component for QA, and things significantly improved.

There are standard tools architects use for Software Design. QAs should have access to them. Especially that QA also needs to be designed. QA perspective needs to be planned as well. In order to test complex systems QAs should be able to have saying in the final architecture document. This is why proper tooling and training for QA teams is required. It is not uncommon to see big impact from QA on the final architecture, and QAs should not be afraid to share their perspective with Architecture. QA is an architecture stakeholder as important as product and development.

Collaboration tools become more important if we want everyone on the team speak the same language. It's evident that tools like Confluence or Lucidchart are playing a crucial role in this space for the team to draw and visualise the requirements or architecture components.

Tools can be sometimes tricky for QA , Understanding Functionality can be an easier approach. If Functionality is understood then correlating what architecture is talking about will help to understand faster and help them to contextualise how it can be tested and what can be the result. Better Quality can be given when Proper functionality of Product,Component is known

Here's my perspective on QA: it has to start with the software architect. A clean, well-thought-out design will provide clarity and structure for the developers. It continues with the developers, who must anticipate and detect unexpected inputs and ensure that the code manages them appropriately. The clearer the error messages, the easier the QA tasks. Recording and replaying keystrokes is a good way to automate repetitive testing. Every patch release candidate should pass a battery of automated tests before a human gets to look at it. AI is getting better at QA testing as well. As others have mentioned, it's a good idea to train the QA staff on the fundamentals & methodologies of the product they are testing, but neophytes can help.

Connecting QA with the development team can help them better understand the Functional requirement , How architecture is getting aligned and how design is getting developed. Instead of making them as Optional for technical discussion they should be mandatory to understand what exactly Technical teams are discussing and how it can impact the quality of Product. So they can share their insight then and there.

QA members must participate in Sprint /Release Planning, Review and Retrospective meetings, if they already aren't doing it today. It helps them to have meaningful and effective discussions with the Dev team members right from the beginning itself and till the end of the Sprint/ Release.

This is key for me, esp. if you claim to be Agile. I have led multiple organizations to have QA learn the developer testing tool and language (how to create tests in C#, for example), in addition to their tools (Selenium?). The benefit from this is you are not playing pitch things back and forth over the wall, you are building a great regression suite. The QA team will add things that are more likely to be implementation/integration minded than unit, but their inclusion shows the development team holes in their tests. Over time, you find the rabbit holes and fringe cases and software quality improves. Every bug requires a failing test before you fix it. If you can't write one, you don't understand the bug enough to fix it.

Collaborating with your software architecture team, including developers, architects, analysts, and managers, is highly beneficial. It provides you with deep insights, real-world context, and effective communication. You'll gain in-depth knowledge, a better understanding of practical challenges, improved problem-solving skills, and enhanced decision-making abilities. This collaboration also contributes to your professional growth and career opportunities. Understanding software architecture involves not only technical knowledge but also practical insights and relationships with the people behind it.

To ensure the QA team has a strong grasp of the software architecture, it's crucial to integrate insights from testing into their learning process. After each testing phase, conduct comprehensive reviews to discuss findings, focusing on how issues relate to architectural components. Develop detailed test scenarios that map to specific architecture layers, enabling the team to identify potential weak points. Encourage cross-functional collaboration with developers and architects, fostering knowledge sharing and understanding of design decisions. Document test results and insights in a central repository for future reference, supporting continuous learning and refinement of the testing approach.

Continuous Learning: Encourage the QA team to stay updated with industry trends and best practices in software architecture. This can be achieved through online courses, workshops, conferences, and reading relevant books and articles. Feedback Loop: Create a feedback loop that allows the QA team to provide input and raise concerns about architectural decisions. This feedback can help improve the architecture and ensure it aligns with the quality and testing requirements. By implementing these strategies, you can enhance the QA team's understanding of software architecture, leading to more effective testing, early issue detection, and improved collaboration across development and QA teams.

Mock Reviews: Organize regular architecture review meetings where the QA team can participate. During these reviews, the team can ask questions, seek clarifications, and provide feedback on the architecture. This engagement can help identify potential issues early in the development cycle.

Según mi experiencia: - Colaborar en conocimiento en comunidades. No podemos hacer retiros de una cuenta bancaria sin primero hacer depositos. - Participar en grupos de industria. - Comunidades de prácticas dentro de la organización y fuera de esta.

It’s important to consider QA as part of the system architecture. Designing systems with testing in mind influences architecture decisions earlier. This allows for greater understanding and an easier path to implement automation.

I disagree with the fundamental assumption of the article. The pitfall is thinking of the QA teams as separate to the engineering teams. A team should be capable of delivering product bits end to end. Everyday communication happens within a team implementing the solution and isolating QA engineers only introduces communication problems and the necessity of them understanding multiple problem domains. A holistic approach would embed at least one QA engineer within the team delivering the feature, making sure the information flows freely from the very beginning and they are capable of shaping the solution with their expertise and perspective.

Involvement at Every Steps: Keeping QA as a part of the whole development cycle will benefit and also help them to understand at each step what changes are coming and how the technical team are working to overcome. So it will keep them updated about all the changes. Sometime major decisions are taken just by tech team and QA comes to know about those changes At the end and they become clueless.

Business architects must be present all the way in the project. Including during QA phase. In one instance the design made by solution engineers and architects in presales phase (design accepted by the client) was change in the middle of the project with out consulting the architect. Additional costs and time extensions made this telco project a painful one.

The testers should also ideally be the ones writing the code. For software testing, teams should be using TDD instead of relying on external QA, and for E2E testing, the teams writing the code should be collaborating with upstream and downstream consumers for writing E2E tests.