Myth 1: The more bugs are found in the product, the less bugs remain in it
At first glance, this statement seems credible. “John, you had three apples, you ate two apples, so how many apples do you have left?” “One!” – Bob answers and he is right. But what happens in QA testing companies? Often bugs that are on the surface prevent deeper testing of the product. Is your application dead after three hours of work? But what will happen to applications (and operating systems) in three days of work?
Surely, fixing this “three-hour” bug will objectively reduce the total number of defects, but at the same time it can bring some new. Even if it won’t, then by all means the chance to find well-hidden old bugs that remained unnoticed is very high.
Myth 2: The more bugs are found in the product, the better
Again, the assumption seems logical. But in fact, every quality assurance consultant will tell you that less is better. Bugs differ greatly. Five types in the GUI are pale in comparison with core functionality failure. Architectural bugs can lead to serious changes in the code, and thus to shift the day of release. If it’s impossible to shift the date, then normally the product functionality and / or the testing period is reduced. That’s why the main goal of every QA testing company is to detect all bugs as soon as possible. Quality but not quantity is more important, isn’t it?
Myth 3. The purpose of the tester is to make sure that the program works properly
Exactly the opposite! Software quality assurance services provided by QA testing companies can only show the availability of the defects, but not their absence. The tester should initially assume that “everything is bad”. If a program is more serious from just displaying “Hello, world!” phrase, it does have bugs. You can never be sure that all the bugs are detected, but in the allotted time it is necessary to find the most malicious ones.
Myth 4: There are only three myths about software quality assurance services
In fact, much more than three!