- cross-posted to:
- programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
!lemmySilver
I used to have a QA job. Can confirm, this is the soup in my head. That’s why I was good at testing. Also, that’s not your sister. That’s your trans brother, who we also love. See?
Am I an oddball in that as a developer, that QA answer is the sort of answer I give? It annoys management to no end.
How are edge cases supposed to be covered if the developer can’t imagine them? It would save SO MUCH time if everyone were as detail oriented and creative as you.
A developer with a QA mindset is never a bad thing in my opinion. It makes sure issues are fixed earlier and saves time (and for management, money)
Nope, a good developer asks exactly the first thing with the birthdays. If you don’t have proper data it’s impossible to give the correct answer. This is the difference from an experienced developer to a junior.
Based on the only comparison we have, the OP is twice the age of their sister. so the sister is now 44/2, or 22. Easy problem.
Based on the only information we have, OPs sister is two. So the sister is 2. Trivial.
ML in action.
You could also simplify by saying that assuming neither of them are dead, at some point while he is 44 she will be 42. Whether or not she is actually his sister seems to be irrelevant, she was stated to be his sister, so regardless of biological data, it is being presented as a fact assumption.
The space stuff is not currently possible and can be disregarded as well.
Also misses the edge case where sister was born on a leap day
Or maybe in a country that recently switched from the Julian calendar, adding the possibility of >12 months between birthdays as described by calendar.
https://github.com/eggert/tz/blob/main/calendars has entered the chat.
Also, as ever, relevant XKCD.
I wish I had a QA like this.
[Test] public void Sister_IsAstronaut() {Also, we first have to define more precise what ‘being 2’ means. If we just count birthdays and one of them is born on Feb 29th in a leap year, that person ‘ages’ with 1/4 of the speed.
Real talk: I wish more orgs place a high value on QA. A good QA team is worth it’s weight in gold and helps prevent a lot of stupid mistakes.
The programmer’s answer?
We don’t support that use case.
“Works for me and my sister.”
Then we’ll ship you and your sister.
And that’s how docker was born!
Either that or incest porn.
Still logs the issue
Dev sets status to won’t do
Wait 2 months
P1 production issue: Exactly what I logged 2 months ago just written out worse
I was once on a team that would filter out staging-only bugs in bug triage meetings. The team would only ever fix a bug if it was found in production. It was exactly as foot-gun as it sounds.
Okay I think the term ‘foot-gun’ is supposed to evoke the image of someone loading a gun and pointing it at their own foot. I can’t help trying to picture a gun thats operated by a foot. Like a mech suit with a robot leg that also fires massive tank shattering shells when you do a roundhouse kick as a human operator. The brain rot seeps just a little bit more every time I see the term ‘foot-gun’ please help.
Noooo 😭
Love this, 100% accurate. QA people are amazing, protect us from ourselves in so many ways we didn’t even think of.
Most of the best QA folks I’ve worked with had teenage children.
I imagine dealing with developers is similar.
I love working with competent QA engineers. It’s always a humbling experience.
I learned more about how computers work from them than I did in all my schooling.
Yes, I second this. QA has caught so many things that did not cross my mind, effectively saving everyone from many painful releases
I’ve worked with some insanely talented devs who were amazed at some of the shit I was able to pull and we could have a laugh about it
But they still don’t think of all common user possibilities. I like this joke:
A software tester walks into a bar.
Runs into a bar.
Crawls into a bar.
Dances into a bar.
Flies into a bar.
Jumps into a bar.
And orders:
a beer.
2 beers.
0 beers.
99999999 beers.
a lizard in a beer glass.
-1 beer.
“qwertyuiop” beers.
Testing complete.
A real customer walks into the bar and asks where the bathroom is.
The bar goes up in flames.
Bathroom testing was not in scope.
This one’s on management.
You know, I feel like management deciding what is and isn’t in scope on their own is itself asking for trouble.
I wish our test team was like that. Ours would respond with something like “How would I test this?”
Programmer should have written all the test cases, and I just run the batches, and print out where their cases failed.
Ewww, no. The programmer should have run their unit tests, maybe even told you about them. You should be testing for edge cases not covered by the unit tests at a minimum and replicating the unit tests if they don’t appear to be very thorough.
I think that the main difference is that developers tend to test for success (i.e. does it work as defined) and that testers should also test that it doesn’t fail when a user gets hold of it.
This.
My units and integration tests are for the things I thought of, and more importantly, don’t want to accidentally break in the future. I will be monumentally stupid a year from now and try to destroy something because I forgot it existed.
Testers get in there and play, be creative, be evil, and they discuss what they find. Is this a problem? Do we want to get out in front of it before the customer finds it? They aren’t the red team, they aren’t the enemy. We sharpen each other. And we need each other.
Tester here, I only have to do this if the ticket is unclear / its not clear where impact can be felt by the change. I once had a project with 4 great analysts and basically never had to ask this question there.
I have worked with some excellent testers but I have also worked with a team that literally required us to write down the tests for them.
To be fair, that wasn’t their fault because they weren’t testers. They were finance people that had been seconded to testing because we didn’t have a real test team.
The current team is somewhere in between.
Look I don’t think its bad to have people like that testing, but you’d need a test team to write the test for them or have those people specifically interested in testing the software.
I’ve had a project where we as testers got out most bugs during test phase, after that it went to staging and there were a few business people who always jumped on testing it there and found bugs we couldn’t think of cause they just knew the business flows so well and we had to go off what our product owners said.
Leaving all testing to a non-testing team isn’t gonna work
We added an API endpoint so users with permission sets that allow them to access this can see the response.
Ok… What is the end point, what’s the permission, is it bundled into a set by default or do I need to make one, what’s the expected response, do we give an error if the permission is false or just a 500?
They always make it so vague
And if one dev responds with “Just look at the swagger” to those questions I’m gonna cry
ID: String (required)
BUT WHAT FORMAT?!?
I feel this in my core bro
Hey! My company just fired ours today!
After all, most delays can directly be traced to the QA department. Wise business decision!
It’s also the system administrator and SRE mindset.
I like this one better https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25851770
Ugh, this is what you get when there’s no AC.
This may be why I hated math.
