The society that separates its thinkers from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.
Or, as I like to think of it, the company that separates its automated testers from its manual testers will have its automated tests written by people who don't have experience 'using' the product and its manual testing done by people who don't understand or trust the automated tests.
When 'testers' become ambivalent about automated tests, the automated tests stop being useful. How many times have you heard '99.8% of the tests pass and we have 94% code coverage, so our tests are good' and inwardly groaned because that tells you only slightly more than nothing about the quality of those tests?
How many times have you talked to a tester and heard that all they did was run through a list of test cases where they gave prescribed inputs to prescribed interfaces? A machine could do that, so why are we wasting the time of a human who is allegedly smarter than one?
If you're a manual tester and have a disdain for automated tests (as I myself did about 1.5 years ago), I'd highly encourage you to give automating some of your 'checks' yourself, even if you don't tell anybody about it and just use those scripts for yourself for now. Get a feel for whether or not you can make these tools work for you. You might be pleasantly surprised by how much information you can get out of them when you apply the right level of scrutiny.
QA Expert | Driving Excellence in Software Testing & Agile Methodologies to create value
9 个月Omo, you see where developers tell you, oya fixed, go and test and they put you on such a wild goose chase for a week, that laugh will disappear, because at that point you will also squeeze your face ??