Blog

Waterfall project management divides production and testing into 2 phases: developers create a feature and then “throw it over the wall” to the QA team for testing through their QA Testing Tools. The quality assurance team creates and implements comprehensive test plans. When carefully searching for regressions in core features that could have been triggered by new work, they often file defects.

Many teams who are involved in providing agile testing services use these waterfall or other conventional testing models discover that as the product increases, the amount of testing keeps increasing QA is forced to keep up. Project owners are faced with an unwelcome choice: postpone the release or cut corners on testing. Progress has gone on to something else in the meantime. Not only is there a growing technological debt, but each defect necessitates a costly context transition between two sections of the codebase.

To make matters worse, QA teams are usually compensated based on the number of bugs found manually or through QA Testing Tools, putting developers on the defensive mindset. What if there was a safer way for developers and QA to reduce the number of bugs in code while also removing the painful trade-offs that project owners must make? Isn’t it true that it will result in better apps in general?

This is where agile testing comes in. If you aren’t outsourcing agile testing services, then here are some things to keep in mind.

Changing testing approaches from conventional to agile

An agile development team’s mission is to consistently produce high-quality new features. Teams transitioning to agile also struggle with how to integrate the testing period at the agile pace. Traditional research methodologies just do not fit into an agile setting, so this is a legit contender. Because of the rapid pace of growth, a fresh strategy to improve compliance in each build is needed. In this article, we’ll share a testing strategy that you can use to benefit from agile and increase your testing quality.

It starts out simple, like credit card debt, but soon snowballs – robbing the team of vital agility. Your developers should be fantastic quality champions in order to tackle spiraling technological debt. Developers, we believe, bring important skills to the table that aid in product quality:

• Developers excel at using coding to solve problems.
• Developers who write their own experiments have a stronger incentive to correct them if they fail.
• Developers who are aware of the feature specifications and how they affect testing to write better code.

Each user story in the pipeline, we feel, needs both function and automated test code. While some teams delegate feature code to developers while the test team handles automated testing, we find that having a single engineer produce the entire set is more reliable.

This approach does not imply that developers function alone. It’s also crucial to have QA engineers on the team. QA engineers bring a valuable perspective to the creation of a feature, and good QA engineers will advise developers on potential “hiding points.”

Exploratory testing with a human connection

Exploratory testing, a useful method during development for battling off more severe bugs, is done by QA team members in collaboration with developers on our development teams. Better code is delivered the first time when developers become better testers.

Isn’t exploratory testing, on the other hand, manual testing? No way. Not in the same way that manual regression testing is. Exploratory testing is a risk-based, critical analysis method to testing that allows the individual conducting the test to apply their knowledge of risks, implementation specifics, and the needs of the customers.

Knowing these details early in the testing phase helps the developer or QA engineer to quickly and thoroughly identify problems without the use of scripted test cases, extensive test plans, or specifications. Since we can apply findings from exploratory testing sessions back to their original code and automated tests, we consider it to be much more successful than conventional manual testing. In a way that structured testing does not, exploratory testing also tells us about the context of using the function.

Exploratory and automated testing are used to maintain consistency. Exploratory testing shows that relevant code follows the quality standard in a wider sense than automated tests alone as new features are introduced. In addition to the comprehensive safeguards against regressions that automated testing offers, this involves ease of use, appealing visual design, and overall usefulness of the feature.

Change is difficult–really difficult

Change is never easy. But, as with most worthwhile endeavors, if you can focus and build new habits for yourself, the only question you’ll have is “Why didn’t we do this sooner?”