How much testing do we need? Economics of testing
Blog post from Qase
Testing should be approached as an economic investment rather than a cost to minimize, with decisions based on the risks that justify specific investments rather than arbitrary metrics like code coverage percentages. The text critiques the conventional focus on achieving high code coverage, arguing it can lead to ineffective testing suites full of flaky tests that do not provide reliable evidence about system risks. Instead, it advocates for a risk-based approach, where testing strategies are tailored to the specific risks and stakes associated with different systems. This perspective aligns with the Cost of Quality framework, which categorizes quality-related expenditures into prevention, appraisal, internal failure, and external failure, aiming to optimize investment in prevention and appraisal to reduce more expensive failure costs. The text describes a four-step process for making informed testing decisions, emphasizing the importance of portfolio thinking—selecting a mix of testing activities to achieve maximum risk reduction. It highlights the necessity of understanding the specific risks a system faces to tailor testing efforts accordingly, utilizing ISO 25010's quality characteristics as a guide. The narrative includes an example where reducing coverage and focusing on meaningful, reliable tests improved quality by providing trustworthy evidence that led to actionable insights.
No tracked trend matches for this post yet.
Use this post, company, and trend context to find content marketing opportunities, perform competitive analysis, or address product feature gaps via the Plushcap MCP server or the Plushcap API.