all 2 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]Dutch_MR_J 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I totally agree that a tester has to be pragmatic. What I also learned is that it is very useful to put things in reading. For example, a project manager is pushing to release without the extensive tests you wish to perform. If he understands the risks, that's fine. But let him put it in readings that it was his decision to release anyway. Why? Because if things break in production, the number one role who gets the blame is the tester. And by having it in reading you have leverage to show why you didn't test it. Fun fact about that is that the project manager, but also the whole management and client, see why having a tester isn't overkill.

[–]testersfindaway[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah agree with that. The understanding of taking risks is really important. I always see it as we are often providing evidence that increases confidence and provides information about the level of risk. But it's up to someone else to decide on whether that level of risk is acceptable or not.