How Does Visuality Handle QA During the Development Process?QA
We recently had time to sit down with the CTO of Visuality to discuss how they handle QA and how they incorporate QA into their development processes. Find out what we’ve learned!
ABOUT THE COMPANY
Visuality is software house that was established in 2007. Visuality is a market leader with numerous international clients across Asia, North America and Europe.
Let’s take a look at some excerpts from the interview we had with the CTO Visuality:
TestArmy: How do you handle QA, and why do you prefer to this way as opposed to other methods?
Visuality: We treat each feature throughout the entire development process as an individual task. This way, the team of developers is testing their own work by requesting and approving each feature before it becomes a part of the main codebase.
In addition to the team checking, we use code quality tools that check the code quality of the requested feature. Continuous integration tools along with tools that check for security threats allow our teams to be confident that they are developing quality software.
For business quality assurance, it’s our developer’s responsibility to test his/her feature and to also test the feature in the environment for which the feature was built. The developer also uses automated tests to finalize and approve his/her feature before merging it to the main codebase.
After every sprint, our team has a meeting in which they review all of the delivered features in the staging environment. If any errors are discovered, they are quickly fixed before our developers can continue.
As our client’s business grows, we always suggest that they carry out things like stress testing and that they have a dedicated quality assurance manager. We don’t provide any QA managers, however we help them with guidance if they are looking for one or are looking to create their own internal team.
We believe that the entire process moves faster if the developer tests each feature as it reduces time spent on quality assurance in the long run. It also encourages our developers to take ownership of their work, which helps us create better quality products.
TestArmy: What do CTOs look for when they consider outsourcing QA? Is outsourcing a positive thing to do in your opinion?
Visuality: Quality assurance processes are generally seen as a bottleneck in the development process. This is why for non-grown or not heavily used apps we don’t require internal/external QA because of the need for rapid development. I think other CTOs would agree that for those kinds of apps, QA processes are not really necessary.
However, when the app begins to grow, we recommend that our clients invest in a dedicated QA manager. This makes QA easier for the client and ensures that their customers will have a solid product on their devices.
In my opinion, outsourcing quality assurance to a well-developed quality assurance company is the best way to go. QA is a large, diverse topic that requires a different type of attention and structure. So if the QA firm is well established and transparent during the entire process, I wouldn’t have a problem with outsourcing quality assurance.
TestArmy: In what area of the QA process are most mistakes made?
Visuality: The whole process itself. QA processes are considered time-consuming and quality assurance is usually not well established process. This is where the knowledge and skill set that I mentioned before becomes an asset. Companies should know what they’re doing and how to make the process efficient, structured and processed.
Another mistake we see is when the client acts as the QA manager. What usually happens, is that when the clients are reviewing the software in a pre-production environment, they focus on things that are not related to QA but to task definition, which has nothing to do with QA.
TestArmy: How do you handle QA with the ever-growing problem of the fragmentation of devices?
Visuality: To handle this problem, we suggest that our clients should have well written acceptance tests running on cloud browsers and also have outsourced manual testers that follow scripts.
TestArmy: What are your thoughts about crowdtesting? Is it useful or just a waste of money?
Visuality: For mobile oriented applications, crowdtesting could be valuable for developers and the client because of the inputs that could be gathered. It doesn’t sound interesting to add only crowdtesting to Software Development Lifecycles, because for the sake of development processes we would need dedicated professionals. But in addition to that, crowd testing can be beneficial for the product.
We would like to express our gratitude to Visuality for taking time to sit down with us and talk about their quality assurance processes! Check out their website to see what kind of awesome stuff they put together! We hope this interview shines some light on how successful software houses incorporate quality assurance in their development processes.