Think like a QA

Why do we test ? The answer might seem obvious, but in fact, it’s pretty complex. Most people think that software testing apt to be a simple and straightforward activity that can be done by anyone. If that is true, then what is special about testers?. Actually, 99% of those people have a false definition of the term. In this read I will highlight the most indispensable principle that distinguish testers from the other stakeholders: The psychology of testing.

First of all, we should understand the mindset used while testing and how it is different from that used while developing, the majority of people might say:

Testing is the process of showing that defects are not present.

or

The purpose of testing is to demonstrate that program does what it is supposed to do.

Which is wrong in my point of view!

Actually, when the QA assesses a functionality, he tests it with the intention to add more value to it, which means raising the quality of it. Raising the quality means finding and removing the maximum number of defects.

Also, aside from reducing risks, defects found and fixed during the testing phase will save time which will reflect on money later.

Therefore, testing isn’t the process of showing that defects are not present. Rather, we should start with the assumption that the functionality contains errors, and then test it to find as many defects possible.

As a conclusion I will say:

Testing is the process of executing a program with the intent of finding defects.

Another way of reinforcing the proper definition of testing is to analyze the use of these words “successful” and “unsuccessful” tests and align all teams toward it.

Let’s analyze together a small practical case, just answer this question:

How do we call a test that is flawless, a successful one or unsuccessful?

Most people will call test that is free from defects a “successful” test, whereas a test that discovers a new defect is usually called “unsuccessful”.

In fact, this is misunderstood.

“Unsuccessful” indicate something undesirable or disappointing.

To our way of thinking, a well constructed and executed test is successful when it finds defects that can be fixed. Usually ,The only unsuccessful test is the one that found no defects.

Let’s take another example, a patient who visits a doctor because of an illness,

If the doctor run some laboratory tests that do not locate the problem, we do not call the laboratory testing a successful. However, if it determines that the patient has an issue, the test is successful because the doctor can then begin the suitable treatment.

Last point that we should consider is that testers work always in collaboration with programmers which means some collaboration problems may occur, particularly if testers are seen only as a messengers of unwanted defects last minute stop-release gate. This is why defects should be communicated in a constructive and neutral way without criticizing the person who created it to tension between testers and programmers.,