The article argues that Dev-Owned testing isn't wrong but all the arguments it presents support that it is.

I always understood shift-left as doing more tests earlier. That is pretty uncontroversial and where the article is still on the right track. It derails at the moment it equates shift-left with dev-owned testing - a common mistake.

You can have quality owned by QA specialists in every development cycle and it is something that consistently works.

▲

TheSoftwareGuy 15 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm interested, as I've never been in an org with QA specialists. What does that look like?

	▲	bluGill 14 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You do everything the same as today. Then you turn it over to QA who keep finding weird things that you never thought of. QA finds more than half your written bugs (of course I don't write a bug everytime a unit test fails when doing TDD, but sometimes I find a bug in code I wrote a few weeks ago and I write that up so I can focus on the story I'm doing today and not forget about the bug) QA should not be replacing anything a developer does, it should be a supplement because you can't think of everything. We also use QA because we are making multi-million dollar embedded machines. One QA can put the code of 10 different developers on the machine and verify it works as well in the real world as it does in software simulation.
	▲	weinzierl 14 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		The are breakers. Good devs are makers. You can be both but I have yet to meet someone who is equally good in both mindsets.
	▲	philk10 12 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		They find all the things the devs and their automated tests missed, then they mentor the devs in how to test for these and they work out how the bug could have been found earlier. Rinse and repeat until the tester is struggling to find issues and has coached the devs out of his job