I used to work for a software development company, and there they had following way of solving bugs and the according testing:
- The bug ticket is analysed by the developer.
- The developer solves the bug.
- The developer describes the testing procedure.
- QA (Quality Assurance) automates the testing procedure and adds it in a big testing plan for all impacted versions (there are more than 100 versions of just one product).
On several occasions, I've mentioned not to agree to this way of working: in my opinion, the correct procedure should be:
- The bug ticket is analysed by the developer and by QA.
- QA describes the testing procedure.
- The developer solves the bug.
- The developer does module testing of the bug, based on the testing procedure, delivered by QA.
- QA automating the general testing procedure => this stays the same.
Every time I proposed this, I received an answer like "Yes, you're right, this would be better from a quality point of view, but based on the need of extra QA personnel for implementing this, I'm afraid management will never agree to this."
So, as far as I can judge, my idea was correct, but as I'm about to apply for a job as a software tester, I'd like to have a funded answer: is my idea indeed correct (but not done because of local personnel/money reasons), or is my idea so expensive in general that this is implemented nowhere, or are there other things I'm not thinking of?
Thanks in advance