With the development team’s task over now the task passes on to the QA which is a critical leg in the project. In fact they are the last sentinel on the way to the software trying to make or break its way into the release shipment. While QA could work hard to find and unearth bugs and issues which otherwise might lie hidden under the labyrinth of the product / application. It takes more than just skilled developers doing their best not to plug in errors into the system.While find bugs , code reviews and umpteen number of best practices would ensure that we produce a great piece of functionality or product which is always ready to be shipped the day QA bless it.

Testing a challenge a skill a craft and not something that is easy to do. It is a forte of a chosen few who do their best to go under the hood and look for the spanner left over post the tasks. It is like a doctor who would have performed a successful surgery but left a knife in the patients body. Testing if done right can trap these defects and help plug these issues.

From a tester’s standpoint what would be important ?

1. Many a times a viewpoint/view that he is looking at is not available in document format anywhere in the organisation.

2. No proper handover of what goes into the software if the developer did his stuff and left early to catch the friday nights bus.

3. No diagrams to illustrate what is that has changed in the organization big picture. He is told things like “we have improved security in the system now”. What does this statement leave the tester with unless told what was really introduced as a part of the fix or change.

4.Does he understand what needs to be tested and does he have the tools.

5.Does unit testing/TDD cover what is to be certified. Or do you always need a full product end to end scenario testing.

6. How much of automation do you have in the system ? Are the test cases all automated and effort being made to check if the code coverage is 80% and above. Do we need to up this number ? . Are we getting false positives ?

7. Does our code coverage make us happy whereas there turns out there is always some boundary condition that missed our attention?

8.Do you have a proper architectural artifacts documentation strategy where QA can go look at it and figure out from time to time where the product is heading ? Most often we have it was last updated when we went for that team outing.

9. One of the ways the product gets to have a feel that all is well in the system is a reiteration their documentation and diagrams are updated and understandable by one and all in the system. This mechanism needs to be continuously followed for everyone to sub consciously starting to feel that our mechanisms are what it should be. If not there we fix them when found. Any other feeling here will not reinforce the “right way” among people.

UML is understood by techie crowd whereas we need to have a mechanism for ensuring the business,functional folks and non technical folks also understand the system to touch/feel/breathe the system and own it as much as the developer who put pieces in their. All of these need strong mechanisms for documentation and diagramming/some kind of non ambiguous visual representation of the system/product.

Go choose your diagramming strategy and be ready for any challenges on your way. It is always better to document things even for preparing for agility. On one hand as we always prefer working code than elaborate documentation , it is equally important to have a proper mechanism in place that works for you. That is where the question of just enough comes into play go for just enough documentation and visual representation.

Ultimately software delivery is a close knit game where all need to play their part and not simply passing the baton from one team to another.