Liability for bugs with non-trivial behavior?

Question

Project management

There is an interface with a map and a form below it. depending on the selected state of the controls (many different checkboxes, inputs, selects and even 2 submits), markers are shown on the map,
respectively, a thousand options for various combinations of filling controls and outgoing results
after receiving the task, I figured out all the possible behaviors that I could imagine in my head. after I did it, there was a meeting with the participation of a manager, a team leader, a tester at which they looked and made small adjustments, let's say 3 pieces. having added them, I sent everything to the preview, the team leader opened the interface and pulled the controls in a different order and gave out:
- Blah blah, there's a bug here, why aren't you testing?
- I can't reproduce such behavior in advance. I tested it all 1000 times but it didn’t occur to me to do this combination
- I’m testing for one minute and already found a bug blah blah
- Yes, but this is after 4 people watched and tested at 3 meetings and didn’t see anything
- it’s obvious. blah blah everything sucks.
okay, forgot
now, a very dissatisfied letter came from the customer and from the head of the company . the customer pulled the controls in a new way.
now the boss writes in a letter that "this is obvious" "the customer found a bug in one minute." tomorrow he will ask the manager and team leader, who will try to blame everything on me. Help))))

Answer 1

Для понимания:
Бизнес-адвокаты-финансисты - это сферы которые __играют__ со словами "хорошо-плохо-правильно-неправильно"
Программисты-инженеры-слесари - это сферы которые делают и у них есть только "работает-в-моменте/не-работает-в-моменте"
Врачи-преподаватели - посередине, но современная тенденция они стараются побыстрее перейти в первую группу
Чтобы тебе легче жилось, тебе придется ВОЗНЕНАВИДЕТЬ первую группу, а не полюбить её.
Только так можно самому начать переходить в эту группу.
Система сломана самим фактом наличия денег и не будет чиниться, т.к. более 50% имеющих ресурсы умеют в нее играть (даже 92%), а так им пришлось бы переучиваться. Не пытайся оправдаться и что-то доказать. "Пока ты оправдываешься - ты не ведешь переговоры" (с) Профессия бизнесмена-финансиста-адвоката в том чтобы любыми способами получить или сэкономить деньги. А поскольку именно адвокаты будут доказывать виновность-невиновность... то выиграет не тот, кто прав, а тот у кого больше финансов.
Чтобы не возникало таких ситуаций, тебе нужно оставлять в договоре бэкдор, через который ты сможешь сбежать. Это не честно, это плохо и это вообще ужасно. Но так все делают. Только молчат.
Пока система не изменится на всеобщую ответственность - это так и будет работать. Тебя будут пытаться заставить работнуть бесплатно любыми способами, потому что это никем не запрещается, а понятие совесть бизнесмены засунули глубоко и надолго. Ты улыбаешься и отвечаешь, что "согласно ТЗ все сделано хорошо". Если второй раз - отвечаешь еще раз. Если третий раз - на выбор - либо удаляешь его и вешаешь в игнор, а сам не признаешься, что это делал, либо устраиваешь гневную тираду на тему того, что он не собирается тебя уважать и именно поэтому ты не собираешься ему помогать.
Actually, it's all about the money. After all, if he called you and asked you to finish it and said that he had money, then you would honestly come and finish it. But he thought he could rip you off. And he is trying to do it for the third time. Just keep it in your head
No proper testing, etc. does not exist in the business world.
There are parties that did not make a rear exit and that did not cover the rear. They are playing. Either you win or you get devoured. This is how it works.
Among other things, there is another side - an outside observer. All the work of a lawyer is based on impressing a third party from the position of generally imposed values.
Thus - if the children are starving it's bad , if you're too strong - it's bad , if you have too much money - it's bad - an outside observer loves Hollywood heroes and the more theses you have that prove that you are a hero - the more you you win. You see, if what I listed above happens because of you, then you turn out to be a bastard. But from the point of view of Buddhism, for example, the process of finding someone to blame is meaningless, because. leads to war.
Heroes also have the right to publish backstabs, while unknown people have no such right. If no one knows about you and you hit in the back - you are a coward. And if you are a hero and hit in the back, then you are the "scourge of God" and generally well done.
High quality exists in a company where there is a good atmosphere and you are valued . There are really very few of them, and there all these graters remain within the walls. But even there one cannot relax, because humanity, brought up in the conditions that you see around, suffers from the same problems. And one of them - authority is more important than quality. From here there are stupid bosses, and also vagabonds, Nobel Prize winners.
After all, the very hope that quite a few people already understand this and are generally ready for change, having realized the whole surrounding movement, is killed by the fact that those who own resources today have no reason to distribute them to everyone. Well, that is, we, as specialists, would very much like people to begin to switch to an awareness of their common responsibility for our planet. But today's leaders will not just not cross over , they will make sure that no one crosses over and will hold the current order for as long as they can .

Answer 2

Everything is very simple. Require the presence of test cases in the TOR. Or draw up your own addendum to the TOR and approve it. In theory, QA should do this, but as I understand it, you don’t have them, so what should you do.
After that, calculate the time to budget the costs of automating these test cases.
The task to pull all controls is not the programmer's task. If the team leader and management require this from the programmer, this is just tyranny and incompetence. Programmers don't know how to test their code . This is an axiom.

Answer 3

Other people have a completely different thought pattern.
Therefore, it is quite common that everyone pulls the controls in their sequence. The tester should test bugs - the developer should edit. It is quite clear that everything cannot be tested by the developer.