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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.