In 2014 Bill Sempf posted this Tweet:
QA Engineer walks into a bar. Orders a beer. Orders 0 beers. Orders 999999999 beers. Orders a lizard. Orders -1 beers. Orders a sfdeljknesv.
— Bill Sempf (@sempf) September 23, 2014
His message caused a chain reaction of awesome responses from people thinking of all the edge cases in this scenario. Among the most hilarious responses were:
— James Hollingshead (@bladesjester) September 24, 2014
@sempf Bartender pours one beer and says "Works on my machine"
— Chris McMahon (@chris_mcmahon) September 23, 2014
You can read the rest of the responses here.
This funny example illustrates perfectly how testers think. We think out of the box and don’t assume that some functionality will work because the developer said so and wrote some unit tests. Sure, automation in testing and scripting has its place and use (as we will discover in the next blog in this series), but it seldom proves that the application works as intended as a whole. Automated scripts are usually following a path without feeding the path new data every time. This can give a false sense of security, “we’ve covered this path”, when inputs matter more to find lingering errors. Read more