Who Needs a Test Case Repository Tool?!

I have heard several opinions on this topic...many like using a repository tool while others do not. I actually fine both beneficial...here's why...

Benefits of using a repository tool:

1. Allows you to store testing notes/test cases in one location (more organized)
2. You are able to provide detailed steps
3. Other testers (or non-testers) can access your test cases

Benefits of NOT using a repository tool:

1. More time can be spent on testing
2. Your ways of testing are not isolated...it is much easier to do exploratory testing
3. Jotting down notes takes less time than writing test case

The benefits of each can also be used a con for the other. I have tested using both and my preference is to not use a repository tool. I like the freedom that it provides which allows you to test at your own will. Plus, if you have completed your testing, you can write a testing summary report. This includes a mission statement, environment information, tests performed, bugs found, and a charter status. This can be used to provide testing details to other testers, developers, product owners, etc.

What is your preference?

Manual Testing vs. Automated Testing

Is there such a thing? That is the question.

James Bach believes there is no such thing as manual or automated testing. It’s all just testing. I totally agree with him. The definition of testing is to perform measures to check the quality, performance, or reliability of (something), before putting it into widespread use. What many people refer to as “test automation” is simply testing that is supported by tools which attempt to simulate user interaction with the system.

There are a lot of different testing tools. Some tools, like selenium, require a very skilled tester to write code to perform the checks. Other tools such as Testing Whiz or Advanced REST client don’t require coding knowledge. Whichever tools you use to perform testing, the end result is the same. The tests will either pass or fail. Depending on which tools are used, the tester may receive the results faster but may be expensive to implement.

Testing “manually” or with “automation” is simply just testing but the use of different tools is what makes it different. What do you think?

Is it necessary to have multiple skill sets in order to be considered a "good" tester?

Should a tester know how to code? Should a tester be proficient in SQL? Should a tester have a project manager mind-set? These are questions that a Quality Assurance tester may have been asked throughout their career but what really makes for a "good" tester? Let's discuss!!

A good tester can be defined by simply someone who is very passionate about testing...someone who loves to find bugs in other people's work OR someone who has been testing for a certain period of time...let's say 15 years. Perhaps their experience makes them a "good" tester...?