
Testing for Developers: why you should be doing Unit, Integration and QA Testing - ukd1
https://blog.rainforestqa.com/2014-04-23-why-unit-integration-and-qa-testing/
======
greenyoda
_" By leveraging internet services like Amazon Mechanical Turk, we can
significantly reduce the cost compared to in-house testing and even outsourced
testing."_

Unfortunately, this means that your testers are going to include random people
who know nothing about your application or your domain - and very little about
testing (why would someone who was a trained tester settle for Mechanical Turk
wages?). They might find some obvious problems, but they probably won't find
subtle problems. Unlike a QA team that works closely with a team of
developers, they won't be able to offer you meaningful feedback about how you
could improve your product. And if they're going to be paid low wages to test
code written by people they've never met, they're really not going to care
very much about doing a good job. As in most cases, you'll get what you pay
for.

------
blazespin
QA is all about situational ethics. It's the very epitome of tactics and
triage. Unit testing, integration testing, black box,beta testers, internal
QA, outsource...-they are all arrows in the Quiver. Anyone who tries to sell
you one fits all is setting your snakeoil.

------
akouts
Nice way of dealing with a near religious debate within the dev community.
Huge fan of TDD from a process perspective, sometimes it can feel like ice
skating uphill selling it though - well written and supported post.

------
strict9
>Having an internal QA team is not a practical solution if you want to deploy
your application frequently.

By having testers who are not connected to your company nor care about its
success, you overlook a crucial feature of having in-house QA. It doesn't have
to mean weeks of non-stop manual regression testing. It means having a team
working in tandem with developers to create unit, functional, and integration
tests for rapid deployments.

I've used mechanical turk and similar services for data entry and other
repetitive tasks, and it can be useful. But quality, usability testing, and
sanity checking are the last areas I would consider handing over a mechanical
turk service.

The notion that "In-house QA is killing your business" is one of the most
laughable tech articles I've read all year. The hyperbole from Rainforest is
over the top.

~~~
krisdol
Agreed. If you cannot deploy frequently with in-house QA, it's because the in-
house QA isn't doing automation, not because you haver in-house QA

------
hernan604
Your product can be the best. But i, like google and others use siesta-js for
unit tests and interface tests with mouse simulation. Its all js and runs
natively on every browser

See the demo: [http://www.bryntum.com/examples/siesta-
latest/examples/brows...](http://www.bryntum.com/examples/siesta-
latest/examples/browse-all-desktop.html)

It can record your actions and generate the tests.

Worth looking.

