→ The Rise of the Software Verifier

View story at Medium.com

I found this article rather interesting. I’m still not sure if some of it is satire, forgive me if I misinterpreted it.

“DevOps has become so sophisticated that there is little fear of bugs. DevOps teams can now deploy in increments, monitor logs for misbehavior, and push a new version with fixes so fast that only a few users are ever affected. Modern software development has squeezed the testers out of testing.

Features are more important than quality when teams are moving fast. Frankly, when a modern tester finds a crashing bug with strange, goofy, or non-sensical input, the development team often just groans and sets the priority of the bug to the level at which it will never actually get fixed. The art of testing and finding obscure bugs just isn’t appreciated anymore. As a result, testers today spend 80% of their time verifying basic software features, and only 20% of their time trying to break the software.”

The author doesn’t say where the 80:20 figures came from, but the testers I have worked with for the last five years have spent zero time on manual regression testing verification and most of their time actually testing the software we were developing. How did we achieve this? Not by splitting our team into testers and verifiers as the author suggests:

What to do about all this? The fix is a pretty obvious one. Software Verification is important. Software Testing is important. But, they are very different jobs. We should just call things what they are, and split the field in two. Software testers who spend their day trying to break large pieces of important software, and software verifiers, who spend their time making sure apps behave as expected day-to-day should be recognized for what they are actually doing. The world needs to see the rise of the “Software Verifier”.

We did this by focussing on automating enough tests that we were confident to release our software frequently being confident we weren’t introducing major regressions. This wasn’t 100% test coverage, it was just enough test coverage to avoid human verification. We obviously spent effort maintaining these tests, but that’s a whole team effort and it freed up a lot of time to spend the rest of our time testing the software and looking for real life bugs using human techniques.

Another thing I noted about the article was the use of the graph to show decreasing interest in software testing:

But even their interest is Software Testing fading fast…

This also applies to software in general, perhaps even more dramatically:

I don’t think there’s a decreasing interest in software testing, or software, but rather these have become more commonplace and more commoditised, so people need to search for these less.