Involve Testers in Software Design

During project testing, our task may only be to identify bugs, but we may not be concerned about the bug generation, because performance appraisal only cares about the quality and quantity of bugs, therefore, our testers are very narrow-minded, or even superficial. When I took over a project test task recently, I found that our work was so monotonous and unpleasant. Where is the reason? We all agree that there is no need, or there is a need, but it is not clear, it may be because the habitual software development process keeps us stuck, testing is always quite passive, and tests can only be carried out from the need, but it turns out that there are too many unreasonable demands, because who else can we count on when demand becomes unfounded?

I haven't discussed the theoretical things for a long time. This project test gave me a deep understanding. The theory is not just a theory. How should we correctly understand these theories and processes and be accepted habitually, I want to be more rational. After all, work is not just for work, but for better work. To better carry out our work, we need to improve our work through various methods. Testing is really boring. Maybe everyone thinks so, at least I don't think so, because I am always trying to make my testing work easier and more efficient, for example, research automation, more understanding of some testing tools, through the intake of such elements, we will also be amazed that the original work can be done in this way, because it is more technical, as a person in the technology industry, what else will attract you more than technology, unless you are not a technical expert. Back to the project testing process, we are used to working according to the process, but how can we do it when the process is not complete? For the testing work, the most common problem is that there is no need, because developers are very familiar with the requirements, but all of them are in their minds. However, when the product is launched, what users provide is why such a function is used, why is this missing? Question the tester? I don't think I can answer this question. I can only say that my needs come from development, because they say that the changes will be changed. If they say that they do not change, they will comment that this section may not be required or is not important, users are not very useful, and there are too many reasons. Maybe everyone is suffering. But here I just want to talk about how our design came from and how our architecture came from? Are these designs reasonable? I remember one time I asked a project team owner about the project architecture design. He asked me what architecture I was saying. It seemed like I was more professional than development. Then I explained it to people for a long time, later people sent me a network topology, and I could only accept it, because people were impatient when asked several times. This was our project development director, and even they had no product in the design phase, can we still expect the following developers to have a design scheme? Of course, I admire them, and the final products can be submitted as scheduled. In this case, the testers will consider the pain points. After all, they are responsible for each product. Because the product is unqualified, testing is also responsible. Of course, we have also received some design objects, that is, pictures, which are basically ps, and then posted on some documents to describe them. This is the so-called design scheme, I can even say that I want to get used to the requirement document, because they are preparing to continue this work. What's even more ridiculous is that the developed products are different from the PS solution pictures, I can't imagine the design can do this. Of course, this is just a description of some of the problems we often encounter in our actual work. We can think about how passive our testing work is and how fruitful we can say.

After several such painstaking efforts, I began to doubt whether we still need to conduct our testing process so passively, because all of them were overwhelmed by development, it is even more intolerable to be fooled by demands. However, we still have to accept what kind of environment we need to change and improve our process at 1.1 points through humble efforts, after all, the product quality can not be captured in one day. I have learned a lot from the testing process and have some personal gains for future project management. These are all painful lessons. I used to have a hard time understanding about the role of test architect. I have read an article about the PK of software designer and test architect some time ago, which gives me a deep understanding of the role of test architect and the importance of this role, as I encountered today, if a project has such a role, the testing process will be more perfect. The pK between the test architect and the software designer is like the PK between the tester and the developer. However, from the technical point of view, the software designer and the test architect may be more likely to reach an agreement, because the product is crucial in the design stage, it is generally possible to become a test architect, and I think the level is certainly not average, so how to involve Testers in software design, it is not just a form. without the guidance of the test architect, the participation of testers in the software design is definitely conducive to the software design, because in many cases, the software design itself has no basis, the tester should assume the role of the user to test the design and reach an effective consensus after putting forward opinions.