Software Testing Pitfalls: 8 Mistakes to Avoid for a Smooth Software QA Journey

Mistakes aren’t an issue if we extract lessons from them. But imagine persistently making the same mistakes without gaining any insight — talk about going in circles! Even worse, what if you fail to recognize these blunders? As a software QA engineer, it’s essential to constantly pursue optimization and improvement. This applies not only to your daily work but also to yourself. Remember, you’ll stumble upon bugs and errors from others, but you’ll also create your fair share of mishaps along the way.

I’ve made a lot of them and upon conversing with my colleagues, I discovered they were making similar ones. So, without further ado, let’s explore eight common mistakes frequently encountered in software QA and learn how to conquer them.

“I Don’t Need To Write The Test Plan In Advance”

The importance of writing a test plan can vary depending on the industry you work in. In my personal experience, I encountered this mistake frequently. In my previous company, which focused on medical devices and operated in a highly regulated industry, it was standard practice to create a test plan before implementing new features. However, in my current job at an IT solutions company, there is more flexibility in determining how to approach testing. Admittedly, being a bit lazy, I often found myself thinking that I could skip writing a test plan, especially for smaller projects, as it seemed time-consuming. But as reality would have it, this approach backfired. During testing, I encountered various questions and identified gaps in the concept, requiring me to communicate these issues with developers and designers. In some cases, we had to start tasks from scratch, resulting in a significant waste of time and money. Therefore, it is always advisable to invest time in preparing a comprehensive test plan for your tickets, features, and so on. You will appreciate discovering any concept mistakes early on in the project, and it will also enable you to conduct your testing more efficiently once the developers have completed their work.

“I Tested Everything So There Are No Bugs”

After diligently testing all the assigned user stories, ensuring that everything was implemented correctly and no bugs were found, it’s tempting to assume that the system is now free from any further bugs and errors. However, that’s not entirely the case. Unfortunately, testing can only reveal the presence of defects; it cannot guarantee their absence. While testing does significantly reduce the likelihood of undiscovered defects in the software, it does not serve as conclusive proof of correctness. Therefore, it’s important to remain prepared for the possibility of undiscovered bugs. This understanding is crucial not just for QA engineers but also for effectively communicating with other stakeholders and the client. It’s not uncommon for errors and bugs to surface even after the product has been released, leading people to assume that nothing was tested in the first place. By acknowledging this possibility and maintaining open communication, we can better address any issues that arise and manage expectations.

“I Will Start Testing When Everything Is Implemented”

One common mistake, particularly among less experienced QAs, is the belief that testing doesn’t make sense until the entire system is complete. However, a good QA professional should initiate the testing process whenever possible. If a developer can provide you with a feature or a portion of the system, seize the opportunity to test it! Discovering errors in the later stages of a project is always more costly. The recommended approach is to start testing from the smallest feasible feature and gradually expand to cover the entire system. This way, you can verify that each feature or specific part of the system functions properly on its own, while also identifying any mistakes that may have occurred during integration into the larger system. Additionally, developers will appreciate not having to troubleshoot issues within a complex system but rather within a smaller, more comprehensible one.

“I Have Found Many Errors Within A Specific Feature But This Is Surely A Coincidence”

During the testing phase of a system, it is not uncommon to come across a multitude of bugs within a specific area of the software. For instance, when working on an e-commerce website, you might discover numerous errors related to the purchasing process. It is a common misconception among inexperienced QAs to view this as mere coincidence, but in reality, it is not! Certain parts and areas of software are inherently more susceptible to errors than others. This can be attributed to various factors, such as complexity or the involvement of less experienced developers.

As a software QA professional, it is vital to recognize this pattern when encountering a significant number of issues within a particular area. Incorporate this knowledge into your test planning and time management strategies. Pay special attention to that specific part of the software, as it is never a random occurrence when multiple errors cluster in one area. By focusing your efforts on addressing the challenges within that critical zone, you can effectively improve the overall quality and performance of the software.

“I Just Test If The Acceptance Criteria Are Implemented Correctly”

You may be assigned a project that is already in progress and has been running for a while. In such cases, you may not be fully familiar with the entire concept of the project, but there are already user stories accumulating in your QA column. To save time, you might be tempted to focus solely on testing against the acceptance criteria. However, it is important to understand that this approach is insufficient.

While fulfilling the acceptance criteria is undoubtedly crucial, it is not the only aspect that matters. The system must also function properly as a whole. The acceptance criteria may be only well-defined for the functional paths of the software that are known to work. But what about other potential “bad” paths where errors may occur? Additionally, what about the overall look and feel of the software? As a QA professional, you bear the responsibility for ensuring the quality of the software, which encompasses much more than just meeting the acceptance criteria. You strive for the best possible system, not merely a system that technically works. Therefore, it is essential to broaden your testing scope beyond the acceptance criteria and consider other aspects of the software’s performance and user experience. By doing so, you can contribute to delivering a high-quality software product that meets both functional requirements and user expectations.

“I Will Define Processes Later And Jump Straight Into The Work”

Throughout your career, you’ll likely work on various projects with different colleagues. Each project is unique, with its duration, tasks, and individuals approaching those tasks in different ways. This might lead you to believe that you can simply dive into the project and adapt as you go. You might think that if you find a bug, you can casually discuss it with the developer, and once your work is done, consult the product owner for guidance. The process will naturally evolve, right?

However, as a responsible software QA professional, your role goes beyond testing alone. It also entails defining effective processes, and this should be done at the project’s outset rather than later on. While minor adjustments can be made along the way, it is crucial to lay the groundwork in advance. Initiate discussions with the product owner and developers to ensure consensus on the process. Well-defined processes not only save time and effort but also foster individual autonomy. Everyone involved should be aware of the next steps and their respective responsibilities. By establishing clear processes from the start, you can enhance efficiency, minimize confusion, and promote a sense of ownership and accountability within the team. So, remember to proactively define and communicate the workflows to set the project on the right track from the very beginning.

“I Don’t Need To Calculate Time For Documentation”

As you may recall from my previous blog post, I strongly advocate for good documentation. However, it’s important to recognize that creating thorough and detailed documentation requires time. This consideration should be taken into account when discussing the QA budget for a new project and should also be kept in mind when testing specific user stories.

Let’s say the project manager asks you how long it will take to test the remaining four user stories. Based on your estimation, you suggest that it will take a day since each story typically requires around 2 hours for testing alone. However, you find yourself finishing only two stories within that timeframe, leaving you disappointed with your performance. Furthermore, your project manager perceives your progress as slow. The underlying issue is that you didn’t factor in the time required for documentation. Crafting good and detailed documentation takes time, especially when striving for thoroughness. Therefore, it is crucial to consider documentation efforts when estimating the testing workload. By acknowledging the documentation aspect, you can make more accurate estimations and better manage expectations. This ensures that you allocate sufficient time not only for testing but also for creating comprehensive documentation that adds value to the project.

“I Can Bypass The Meetings At The Beginning Of The Project”

Many projects follow a similar pattern. In the initial stages, the product manager gathers client requirements, designers create layouts and establish basic UI/UX, and discussions occur with developers to ensure feasibility and devise effective solutions. At this point, QA professionals may not feel the need to be present from the beginning and decide to join later when specific tasks arise.

However, this is a common mistake made by many software QAs. The problem arises when everyone else becomes well-informed about the system while you remain uninformed. Consequently, you end up asking questions that others already know the answers to, essentially repeating meetings that have already taken place. To save time and effort, it is advisable to insist on being part of these meetings as early as possible. This proactive involvement allows you to analyze the client’s requirements from a QA perspective. Are they clearly defined and testable? Are there any gaps in the concept? By being present and engaged from the start, you can identify potential issues sooner and prevent problems down the line. Being an active participant in early meetings not only enhances your understanding of the project but also allows you to contribute valuable insights from a QA standpoint. This involvement facilitates better collaboration, effective problem-solving, and ultimately leads to improved project outcomes.

“I Will Only Report The Major Bugs To The Developers”

Avoid falling into the trap of being a people pleaser! It’s a common occurrence to come across incomplete test reports where not all findings are documented. Upon speaking with the responsible tester, they often admit that these issues were deemed minor and they didn’t want to upset the developers by including them.

However, it’s essential to document and communicate everything you discover, no matter how small. The fear of being judged or creating tension within the team can lead some individuals to withhold information. Yet, in a software team, it’s crucial to foster open and honest discussions. Setting this expectation from the start creates a norm where even minor mistakes can be openly addressed. While some of these issues may be overlooked, it’s important not to be a people pleaser and conceal unpleasant news.

These are just a few significant mistakes I’ve encountered during my journey, and undoubtedly, there will be more in the future. However, by avoiding these eight mistakes, you’ll undoubtedly experience a smoother professional life, and your colleagues will also reap the benefits. Remember, honest communication and transparency are vital components for success in any software team.