Welcome to the 82nd issue!

A few months ago, I mentioned the article about how Facebook is finding and fixing regressions faster stating that the later the bug is found, the costlier it is to fix.

If Google, Facebook and some research papers say so, why wouldn't it be?

Well, that's where it gets funny.

As it turns out, the most-quoted research about the cost of a software bug doesn't even exist! And there's more. Hillel Wayne explains that many others are full of bad assumptions or errors, too.

So, how is it? Are the late-spotted bugs costlier to fix?

It depends.

We've learned it's hard to prove or deny scientifically. But I still think testers should be involved in the early phases of the software development life cycle.

Spotting an invalid requirement when it's still on paper is — and always will be — cheaper to fix (in terms of both time and cost) compared to finding out about it when it's already delivered.

This is common sense. We don't need research papers for that.

Happy testing!

Dawid Dylowicz  



Sponsored Link





Thanks for reading!

If you like this newsletter and it helps you become a better tester, you can say thanks and buy me a coffee.

Dawid Dylowicz