In this post, I’ll be discussing a recent article I came across on the TestRail website, which can be found here. The post interested me because it dives deep into the importance of organizing and managing test cases effectively, a topic that we have been covering closely in class. As someone who does a lot of tests in various stages, this article gave me some good notes about how proper test case management can streamline the testing process and reduce the risk of overlooked issues.

One of the key takeaways from the article was the concept of structuring test cases with clear, concise steps and expected outcomes. This was notable because I’ve often seen situations where poorly written test cases lead to confusion or unnecessary delays. The article emphasized that each test case should be easily understandable, even for someone unfamiliar with the project, which makes a lot of sense. Clear test cases not only make the process smoother for current testers, but they also provide better documentation for future test cycles. I’ve personally benefited from this approach, especially when revisiting a project after some time has passed, well-written test cases make it easier to pick up where I left off, and they can even give hints (though these shouldn’t be needed) as to what the code is intending to do, and where some logical boundaries may exist.

The article also discussed the importance of categorizing test cases based on their purpose—whether they’re functional, regression, or exploratory tests. This structure helps ensure that each test type is executed at the appropriate stage and that nothing gets missed. In my experience, this kind of organization is crucial, particularly for large-scale projects where test cases can easily become scattered. I’ve found that when I categorize my tests according to at least some standard, I’m able to prioritize them better and avoid redundant testing, ultimately saving time and effort. It’s a simple but effective way to maintain focus on what really matters. My personal default is to follow the code chronologically / in the order of execution, as that is what feels most natural to me.

Another point I appreciated was the article’s advice on using test management tools, like TestRail itself, to keep track of test cases, execution results, and bugs. Granted, they are going to try to sell their own software, but it is still notable. Managing test cases manually in a spreadsheet or document can quickly become cumbersome, especially as projects grow, and using a product or software to handle this for you can be very beneficial.

Overall, this article reaffirmed the importance of a well-organized approach to test case management. As I continue testing processes and software, I’ll be more mindful of how I structure, categorize, and track my test cases, ensuring that testing is as efficient and effective as possible.

From the blog Mr. Lancer 987's Blog by Mr. Lancer 987 and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 In this post, I’ll be discussing a recent article I came across on the TestRail website, which can be found here. The post interested me because it dives deep into the importance of organizing and managing test cases effectively, a topic that we have been covering closely in class. As someone who does a lot of tests in various stages, this article gave me some good notes about how proper test case management can streamline the testing process and reduce the risk of overlooked issues.

One of the key takeaways from the article was the concept of structuring test cases with clear, concise steps and expected outcomes. This was notable because I’ve often seen situations where poorly written test cases lead to confusion or unnecessary delays. The article emphasized that each test case should be easily understandable, even for someone unfamiliar with the project, which makes a lot of sense. Clear test cases not only make the process smoother for current testers, but they also provide better documentation for future test cycles. I’ve personally benefited from this approach, especially when revisiting a project after some time has passed, well-written test cases make it easier to pick up where I left off, and they can even give hints (though these shouldn’t be needed) as to what the code is intending to do, and where some logical boundaries may exist.

The article also discussed the importance of categorizing test cases based on their purpose—whether they’re functional, regression, or exploratory tests. This structure helps ensure that each test type is executed at the appropriate stage and that nothing gets missed. In my experience, this kind of organization is crucial, particularly for large-scale projects where test cases can easily become scattered. I’ve found that when I categorize my tests according to at least some standard, I’m able to prioritize them better and avoid redundant testing, ultimately saving time and effort. It’s a simple but effective way to maintain focus on what really matters. My personal default is to follow the code chronologically / in the order of execution, as that is what feels most natural to me.

Another point I appreciated was the article’s advice on using test management tools, like TestRail itself, to keep track of test cases, execution results, and bugs. Granted, they are going to try to sell their own software, but it is still notable. Managing test cases manually in a spreadsheet or document can quickly become cumbersome, especially as projects grow, and using a product or software to handle this for you can be very beneficial.

Overall, this article reaffirmed the importance of a well-organized approach to test case management. As I continue testing processes and software, I’ll be more mindful of how I structure, categorize, and track my test cases, ensuring that testing is as efficient and effective as possible.

From the blog Mr. Lancer 987's Blog by Mr. Lancer 987 and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 In this post, I’ll be discussing my thoughts on an article I found on the Ministry of Testing website titled “An introduction to Continuous Integration (CI) and Continuous Delivery (CD) pipelines for software testers.” This piece really stood out to me because it highlighted the importance of integrating testing into the continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD) pipeline. I’ve been learning about automated testing and CI/CD practices, and this article helped me better understand how testing can be embedded into each phase of the development cycle to ensure high-quality software and faster release times.

One key point that really resonated with me was the idea of shifting left, which means testing early in the development process. The author explained that integrating tests into the CI/CD pipeline allows teams to detect bugs and issues earlier, rather than waiting until the end of the development cycle. This makes perfect sense to me because I’ve seen firsthand in my career how much more efficient the development process becomes when tests are automated and run continuously. Instead of waiting for a bug to be discovered during a manual testing phase late in the process, CI/CD testing enables teams to catch those issues as they happen, significantly reducing the risk of production bugs and minimizing the effort needed to fix them. When things build up, business units accrue a lot of technical debt, and I end up having to hound them to fix 20 different things at the same time, instead of them being able to handle them as they appear, which CI/CD pipeline testing may help them with.

By incorporating automated tests into the pipeline, I can quickly get feedback about the code I’ve written, allowing me to catch mistakes early. However, I also realized that the article pointed out a very important note that I agree with: not all tests can be fully automated. There are still areas, such as user experience or complex edge cases, that may require more manual or exploratory testing. This balance of automated and manual testing within CI/CD pipelines is something I’ve experienced while developing a public facing status page, where it is not just functionality that needs to be tested, but also human elements, like how the page looks.

The article also discussed how testing within the CI/CD pipeline encourages a mindset of continuous improvement. Each time a test fails or catches an issue, it provides an opportunity to address potential gaps in the process and refine both the tests and the code. I think this aligns perfectly with the idea of being a “Software Apprentice,” always looking for ways to improve and enhance the quality of the product, no matter how far along in the development cycle it may be. Overall, this article reinforced the idea that CI/CD testing is not just about speeding up development—it’s about focusing on quality, where testing is an integral part of every stage.

From the blog Mr. Lancer 987's Blog by Mr. Lancer 987 and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 In this post, I’ll be discussing my thoughts on an article I found on the Ministry of Testing website titled “An introduction to Continuous Integration (CI) and Continuous Delivery (CD) pipelines for software testers.” This piece really stood out to me because it highlighted the importance of integrating testing into the continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD) pipeline. I’ve been learning about automated testing and CI/CD practices, and this article helped me better understand how testing can be embedded into each phase of the development cycle to ensure high-quality software and faster release times.

One key point that really resonated with me was the idea of shifting left, which means testing early in the development process. The author explained that integrating tests into the CI/CD pipeline allows teams to detect bugs and issues earlier, rather than waiting until the end of the development cycle. This makes perfect sense to me because I’ve seen firsthand in my career how much more efficient the development process becomes when tests are automated and run continuously. Instead of waiting for a bug to be discovered during a manual testing phase late in the process, CI/CD testing enables teams to catch those issues as they happen, significantly reducing the risk of production bugs and minimizing the effort needed to fix them. When things build up, business units accrue a lot of technical debt, and I end up having to hound them to fix 20 different things at the same time, instead of them being able to handle them as they appear, which CI/CD pipeline testing may help them with.

By incorporating automated tests into the pipeline, I can quickly get feedback about the code I’ve written, allowing me to catch mistakes early. However, I also realized that the article pointed out a very important note that I agree with: not all tests can be fully automated. There are still areas, such as user experience or complex edge cases, that may require more manual or exploratory testing. This balance of automated and manual testing within CI/CD pipelines is something I’ve experienced while developing a public facing status page, where it is not just functionality that needs to be tested, but also human elements, like how the page looks.

The article also discussed how testing within the CI/CD pipeline encourages a mindset of continuous improvement. Each time a test fails or catches an issue, it provides an opportunity to address potential gaps in the process and refine both the tests and the code. I think this aligns perfectly with the idea of being a “Software Apprentice,” always looking for ways to improve and enhance the quality of the product, no matter how far along in the development cycle it may be. Overall, this article reinforced the idea that CI/CD testing is not just about speeding up development—it’s about focusing on quality, where testing is an integral part of every stage.

From the blog Mr. Lancer 987's Blog by Mr. Lancer 987 and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 In this post, I’ll be discussing my thoughts on an article I found on the Ministry of Testing website titled “An introduction to Continuous Integration (CI) and Continuous Delivery (CD) pipelines for software testers.” This piece really stood out to me because it highlighted the importance of integrating testing into the continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD) pipeline. I’ve been learning about automated testing and CI/CD practices, and this article helped me better understand how testing can be embedded into each phase of the development cycle to ensure high-quality software and faster release times.

One key point that really resonated with me was the idea of shifting left, which means testing early in the development process. The author explained that integrating tests into the CI/CD pipeline allows teams to detect bugs and issues earlier, rather than waiting until the end of the development cycle. This makes perfect sense to me because I’ve seen firsthand in my career how much more efficient the development process becomes when tests are automated and run continuously. Instead of waiting for a bug to be discovered during a manual testing phase late in the process, CI/CD testing enables teams to catch those issues as they happen, significantly reducing the risk of production bugs and minimizing the effort needed to fix them. When things build up, business units accrue a lot of technical debt, and I end up having to hound them to fix 20 different things at the same time, instead of them being able to handle them as they appear, which CI/CD pipeline testing may help them with.

By incorporating automated tests into the pipeline, I can quickly get feedback about the code I’ve written, allowing me to catch mistakes early. However, I also realized that the article pointed out a very important note that I agree with: not all tests can be fully automated. There are still areas, such as user experience or complex edge cases, that may require more manual or exploratory testing. This balance of automated and manual testing within CI/CD pipelines is something I’ve experienced while developing a public facing status page, where it is not just functionality that needs to be tested, but also human elements, like how the page looks.

The article also discussed how testing within the CI/CD pipeline encourages a mindset of continuous improvement. Each time a test fails or catches an issue, it provides an opportunity to address potential gaps in the process and refine both the tests and the code. I think this aligns perfectly with the idea of being a “Software Apprentice,” always looking for ways to improve and enhance the quality of the product, no matter how far along in the development cycle it may be. Overall, this article reinforced the idea that CI/CD testing is not just about speeding up development—it’s about focusing on quality, where testing is an integral part of every stage.

From the blog Mr. Lancer 987's Blog by Mr. Lancer 987 and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 In this post, I’ll be discussing my thoughts on an article I found on the Ministry of Testing website titled “An introduction to Continuous Integration (CI) and Continuous Delivery (CD) pipelines for software testers.” This piece really stood out to me because it highlighted the importance of integrating testing into the continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD) pipeline. I’ve been learning about automated testing and CI/CD practices, and this article helped me better understand how testing can be embedded into each phase of the development cycle to ensure high-quality software and faster release times.

One key point that really resonated with me was the idea of shifting left, which means testing early in the development process. The author explained that integrating tests into the CI/CD pipeline allows teams to detect bugs and issues earlier, rather than waiting until the end of the development cycle. This makes perfect sense to me because I’ve seen firsthand in my career how much more efficient the development process becomes when tests are automated and run continuously. Instead of waiting for a bug to be discovered during a manual testing phase late in the process, CI/CD testing enables teams to catch those issues as they happen, significantly reducing the risk of production bugs and minimizing the effort needed to fix them. When things build up, business units accrue a lot of technical debt, and I end up having to hound them to fix 20 different things at the same time, instead of them being able to handle them as they appear, which CI/CD pipeline testing may help them with.

By incorporating automated tests into the pipeline, I can quickly get feedback about the code I’ve written, allowing me to catch mistakes early. However, I also realized that the article pointed out a very important note that I agree with: not all tests can be fully automated. There are still areas, such as user experience or complex edge cases, that may require more manual or exploratory testing. This balance of automated and manual testing within CI/CD pipelines is something I’ve experienced while developing a public facing status page, where it is not just functionality that needs to be tested, but also human elements, like how the page looks.

The article also discussed how testing within the CI/CD pipeline encourages a mindset of continuous improvement. Each time a test fails or catches an issue, it provides an opportunity to address potential gaps in the process and refine both the tests and the code. I think this aligns perfectly with the idea of being a “Software Apprentice,” always looking for ways to improve and enhance the quality of the product, no matter how far along in the development cycle it may be. Overall, this article reinforced the idea that CI/CD testing is not just about speeding up development—it’s about focusing on quality, where testing is an integral part of every stage.

From the blog Mr. Lancer 987's Blog by Mr. Lancer 987 and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 In this post, I’ll be discussing my thoughts on an article I found on the Ministry of Testing website titled “An introduction to Continuous Integration (CI) and Continuous Delivery (CD) pipelines for software testers.” This piece really stood out to me because it highlighted the importance of integrating testing into the continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD) pipeline. I’ve been learning about automated testing and CI/CD practices, and this article helped me better understand how testing can be embedded into each phase of the development cycle to ensure high-quality software and faster release times.

One key point that really resonated with me was the idea of shifting left, which means testing early in the development process. The author explained that integrating tests into the CI/CD pipeline allows teams to detect bugs and issues earlier, rather than waiting until the end of the development cycle. This makes perfect sense to me because I’ve seen firsthand in my career how much more efficient the development process becomes when tests are automated and run continuously. Instead of waiting for a bug to be discovered during a manual testing phase late in the process, CI/CD testing enables teams to catch those issues as they happen, significantly reducing the risk of production bugs and minimizing the effort needed to fix them. When things build up, business units accrue a lot of technical debt, and I end up having to hound them to fix 20 different things at the same time, instead of them being able to handle them as they appear, which CI/CD pipeline testing may help them with.

By incorporating automated tests into the pipeline, I can quickly get feedback about the code I’ve written, allowing me to catch mistakes early. However, I also realized that the article pointed out a very important note that I agree with: not all tests can be fully automated. There are still areas, such as user experience or complex edge cases, that may require more manual or exploratory testing. This balance of automated and manual testing within CI/CD pipelines is something I’ve experienced while developing a public facing status page, where it is not just functionality that needs to be tested, but also human elements, like how the page looks.

The article also discussed how testing within the CI/CD pipeline encourages a mindset of continuous improvement. Each time a test fails or catches an issue, it provides an opportunity to address potential gaps in the process and refine both the tests and the code. I think this aligns perfectly with the idea of being a “Software Apprentice,” always looking for ways to improve and enhance the quality of the product, no matter how far along in the development cycle it may be. Overall, this article reinforced the idea that CI/CD testing is not just about speeding up development—it’s about focusing on quality, where testing is an integral part of every stage.

From the blog Mr. Lancer 987's Blog by Mr. Lancer 987 and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 In this post, I’ll be discussing my thoughts on an article I found on the Ministry of Testing website titled “An introduction to Continuous Integration (CI) and Continuous Delivery (CD) pipelines for software testers.” This piece really stood out to me because it highlighted the importance of integrating testing into the continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD) pipeline. I’ve been learning about automated testing and CI/CD practices, and this article helped me better understand how testing can be embedded into each phase of the development cycle to ensure high-quality software and faster release times.

One key point that really resonated with me was the idea of shifting left, which means testing early in the development process. The author explained that integrating tests into the CI/CD pipeline allows teams to detect bugs and issues earlier, rather than waiting until the end of the development cycle. This makes perfect sense to me because I’ve seen firsthand in my career how much more efficient the development process becomes when tests are automated and run continuously. Instead of waiting for a bug to be discovered during a manual testing phase late in the process, CI/CD testing enables teams to catch those issues as they happen, significantly reducing the risk of production bugs and minimizing the effort needed to fix them. When things build up, business units accrue a lot of technical debt, and I end up having to hound them to fix 20 different things at the same time, instead of them being able to handle them as they appear, which CI/CD pipeline testing may help them with.

By incorporating automated tests into the pipeline, I can quickly get feedback about the code I’ve written, allowing me to catch mistakes early. However, I also realized that the article pointed out a very important note that I agree with: not all tests can be fully automated. There are still areas, such as user experience or complex edge cases, that may require more manual or exploratory testing. This balance of automated and manual testing within CI/CD pipelines is something I’ve experienced while developing a public facing status page, where it is not just functionality that needs to be tested, but also human elements, like how the page looks.

The article also discussed how testing within the CI/CD pipeline encourages a mindset of continuous improvement. Each time a test fails or catches an issue, it provides an opportunity to address potential gaps in the process and refine both the tests and the code. I think this aligns perfectly with the idea of being a “Software Apprentice,” always looking for ways to improve and enhance the quality of the product, no matter how far along in the development cycle it may be. Overall, this article reinforced the idea that CI/CD testing is not just about speeding up development—it’s about focusing on quality, where testing is an integral part of every stage.

From the blog Mr. Lancer 987's Blog by Mr. Lancer 987 and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 In this post, I’ll be discussing my thoughts on an article I found on the Ministry of Testing website titled “An introduction to Continuous Integration (CI) and Continuous Delivery (CD) pipelines for software testers.” This piece really stood out to me because it highlighted the importance of integrating testing into the continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD) pipeline. I’ve been learning about automated testing and CI/CD practices, and this article helped me better understand how testing can be embedded into each phase of the development cycle to ensure high-quality software and faster release times.

One key point that really resonated with me was the idea of shifting left, which means testing early in the development process. The author explained that integrating tests into the CI/CD pipeline allows teams to detect bugs and issues earlier, rather than waiting until the end of the development cycle. This makes perfect sense to me because I’ve seen firsthand in my career how much more efficient the development process becomes when tests are automated and run continuously. Instead of waiting for a bug to be discovered during a manual testing phase late in the process, CI/CD testing enables teams to catch those issues as they happen, significantly reducing the risk of production bugs and minimizing the effort needed to fix them. When things build up, business units accrue a lot of technical debt, and I end up having to hound them to fix 20 different things at the same time, instead of them being able to handle them as they appear, which CI/CD pipeline testing may help them with.

By incorporating automated tests into the pipeline, I can quickly get feedback about the code I’ve written, allowing me to catch mistakes early. However, I also realized that the article pointed out a very important note that I agree with: not all tests can be fully automated. There are still areas, such as user experience or complex edge cases, that may require more manual or exploratory testing. This balance of automated and manual testing within CI/CD pipelines is something I’ve experienced while developing a public facing status page, where it is not just functionality that needs to be tested, but also human elements, like how the page looks.

The article also discussed how testing within the CI/CD pipeline encourages a mindset of continuous improvement. Each time a test fails or catches an issue, it provides an opportunity to address potential gaps in the process and refine both the tests and the code. I think this aligns perfectly with the idea of being a “Software Apprentice,” always looking for ways to improve and enhance the quality of the product, no matter how far along in the development cycle it may be. Overall, this article reinforced the idea that CI/CD testing is not just about speeding up development—it’s about focusing on quality, where testing is an integral part of every stage.

From the blog Mr. Lancer 987's Blog by Mr. Lancer 987 and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 In this post, I’ll be discussing my thoughts on a recent article I read from the Software Testing Help website, which can be found here. The piece really struck me because it reinforced many of the ideas I’ve come to believe about the role of testing in the software development lifecycle, particularly how automation can improve both speed and quality. I’ve always been a fan of automated testing, but this article helped me think more deeply about how it should fit into the broader testing strategy.

One of the key points in the article was the idea of balancing automation with manual testing. While automation is critical for repetitive tasks and quick feedback, the author pointed out that certain aspects of testing—like user experience—cannot be fully captured by automated scripts. This really resonated with me, as I’ve encountered situations where automation was great for catching functional issues, but it missed some of the nuance that a manual tester might be able to identify or spot. I think it’s a reminder that we should never rely too heavily on automation, and that human insight still has an important role to play.

In my own experience, automated testing has been a huge time-saver, especially for regression testing. It helps ensure that previously working functionality remains intact as new features are added. But I’ve also seen the limitations, particularly when automated tests don’t cover edge cases or fail to reflect real-world scenarios. I’ve learned that a good testing strategy needs to integrate both approaches—automation for efficiency and manual testing for critical thinking and creativity. I’ve gotten in the habit of mentally doing a once over to make sure that all my automated tests still cover everything I can think of, instead of just blindly assuming they do.

The article also emphasized the importance of writing testable code to support automation. This is something I think I can improve on in my own work. By considering testability from the start, we can avoid technical debt and create more maintainable, reliable systems. Writing code with testing in mind encourages good design practices and ensures that automated tests are effective.

Lastly, the article touched on continuous integration (CI) and how automated tests play a vital role in CI pipelines. This is something I’ve been trying to implement more consistently, and I’m seeing the value of catching bugs early, before they make it to production. It’s a mindset of constant improvement that aligns well with the idea of being a “Software Apprentice”—always refining and enhancing our process.

In conclusion, this article reaffirmed the importance of finding the right balance between automated and manual testing. As I continue my journey as a developer, I’ll be more mindful of how I integrate both into my workflow to ensure quality and efficiency.

From the blog Mr. Lancer 987's Blog by Mr. Lancer 987 and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.