Article archive
A junior tester wrote a test step saying: Check the claims portal works. The expected result was: Claims portal works as expected. He later closed a defect because the page loaded successfully. The defect was that the page displayed another claimant’s address. The test passed because the page loaded. Whose data it loaded was considered […]
I changed the executive demonstration account to a restricted user so I could test permissions. I forgot to change it back. The programme director logged in during the demonstration and saw an empty dashboard. I confirmed that the access controls were working perfectly. Nobody found that reassuring.
I followed the test script exactly. Step six told me to click a button that did not exist. I raised a blocker. The developer pointed out that the script named the previous system in its title. I had apparently achieved perfect execution of the wrong test.
During defect triage, the developer challenged my evidence. I shared my screen to find the recording. A paused YouTube tab was still open: How to Deal with Stupid People: 8 ways
I asked another tester to peer-review my test cases. He changed Select Submit to Click Submit in 63 places. He returned them with 63 comments and marked the review complete. That afternoon, he told the test manager he had found 63 quality issues in my work.
I completed the full regression pack using one test account. Every journey passed. After go-live, normal users could not access half the system. I checked the test account. Someone had given it administrator access six months earlier. That someone was me.
The UAT environment was full of old customer records. I deleted them to give the business a clean starting point. They were not old customer records. They were the business team’s completed UAT scenarios. The next morning, the UAT dashboard showed zero tests completed. For once, the dashboard was entirely accurate.
I attached a screenshot to prove the defect. The screenshot included a Teams notification from another tester saying: That fix is held together with prayers. The developer saw it. The defect meeting became a meeting about professional communication. The defect remained open.
Another tester refused to retest defects unless the developer personally reassigned each ticket to him and wrote Ready for retest in a comment. At stand-up, he reported 23 defects blocked by development. All 23 had been fixed. They were sitting in the Retest column. He said Jira workflow was a shared responsibility.
Another tester marked every defect as a blocker. A typo was a blocker because it blocked him from approving the page. A missing tooltip was a blocker because it blocked users from understanding the icon. When an actual blocker arrived, the project manager downgraded it without reading. The tester complained that nobody took severity seriously.