Is QA really a Gatekeeper?
Ministry of Testing
Question:
As a tester, are you the gatekeeper, meaning you get to decide if you've tested enough and a ticket is approved for a release? Or, do you pass along information gained through testing for review, so that a decision-maker can decide if they have enough info to release?
Gatekeeper
Information Gatherer
Clarification: I'm not asking what you believe is right, the question is what you do in your current role.
Clarification #2: This is for cases where you've tested and not discovered issues that might give a reason not to release. If you found such an issue, assume it was already fixed and you tested again.
I'm aiming to become less of a de facto gatekeeper and more of an info provider. I believe doing so will help share knowledge across the team and share responsibility for release readiness with other roles. If anyone who already made it to the information gatherer level would like to share how they got there, I'd really appreciate it!
-- Anonymous
Suggestion 1:
In the ideal world, the (primary) tester is also the feature developer. Often, there should be some oversight and shared responsibility, and its certainly nice to be able to leverage testing specialists. Like so many things, it depends, and I’m not comfortable checking either box above.
-- Zach Lysobey
Case Study cont...
The gist is that a tester is the last person to see every ticket before it's marked as approved. Generally, the testing results are not necessarily reviewed at all, it's assumed the tester tested 'sufficiently' and would have reported any problems if they found any. I'm wondering about another part of the process, where the tester needs to make a brief summary of their testing and assign to a product owner for them to review before the ticket is 'closed.' Then the responsibility is more on the product owner's shoulders to see if the tester provided enough information to make a decision, rather than trusting the tester to make the decision they gathered enough information. Maybe I'm being hindered in my thinking by a bug?
I really need to spend less time looking for new interesting articles and focus on what's already been said. Especially relevant is "When asked to “sign off” on the product, politely offer to report on the testing you’ve done, but leave approval to those whose approval really matters: the product owners." Nothing is stopping me from doing that... I've heard this idea from you before, I think I even read this article in the past, and have also heard this in the RST class, but it hasn't hit home as much as it has now.
Suggestion 2:
I'm pondering about another piece of the procedure, where the analyzer needs to make a concise rundown of their testing and dole out to an item product owner for them to survey before the ticket is 'shut.' To me, that appears to be absolutely solid.
It would not be a genuine change by and by. It would be an affirmation of the real practice; the finish of the deception that it's some other way. You exist to assist them with understanding the item they have, so they can surprise whether it's the item they need.
-- Anonymous
Reference:
Last updated