Thank you Paulina et al, this is looking good. I added feedback, quite a bit of it. Enough that you might wonder why I gave so much. I put this in a comment in the document, however I'd like to x-post it here for further discussion.
What I asked is: The book Accelerate makes a strong case that automated testing, even at
the cost of maintaining it, is of greater value if it leads to reduced
lead times and more frequent deployments. i.e. when manual testing
isn't playing the gatekeeper function. I know I've recommended keeping
automated tests out of edge cases before to avoid brittle tests becoming a
burden, however the case made by Accelerate has me reconsidering this.
While we may not completely switch gears right now, I think we should
consider giving it a try, and that means challenging some of these
assumptions - even if they're hard learned lessons from the past.
Overall what I'm thinking is if we should really rethink how we utilize manual and automated testing. In retrospect this regression testing process has undeniably added considerable overhead, and it's challenging our ability to deliver value to stakeholders which don't want to wait months. We're making improvements in this process to reduce the burden it puts on us, however there is a strong case made in the book Accelerate that any considerable manual testing which is acting as a gatekeeper function actually hurts quality.
Obviously we can't just yank the regression tests and expect good things. However we can rethink what's holding our quality, and frequency of delivery, back. A few brainstorm type topics:
- Automated tests, of course.
- Integrating the QA mindset in with the development mindset (e.g. what if we didn't have a QA column on our sprint board)
- Ensuring that when a release breaks things in production, we know about it first and we know how to quickly release something that makes the world right again.
This is a conversation that's in parallel to the document posted - i.e. we don't need to rewrite the document, though some of the assertions it makes about the value of manual and automated testing should get to more specifics without limiting the brainstorming above.
Thoughts?
Best,
Josh