Should a developer do manual testing?

Question

Software testing

Not exactly the right question. Let's say a programmer writes code, checks it manually on some test data, writes tests for the code. From his point of view, it seems to him that he did the testing and his code should work, but he is not entirely sure, because he might have missed something (human factor).
At the same time, no one from the outside checks the code manually, only the review code without searching for bugs. The code flies immediately to production.
All responsibility lies with the developer, so if something breaks, then they run to him and ask why it doesn’t work, because you tested, wrote tests, and you are still the author of the code. To be honest, there’s not even much to answer, because apart from just missing some detail or not checking the script on other test data, nothing comes to mind.
There is no tester in the company.
Sometimes for such jambs they can slap a fine.

Answer 1

>Sometimes for such jambs can slap a fine.
Run from there!!!
There will always be bugs - if the boss expects 0 bugs from you, or lowers your salary (and most likely they themselves don’t even have a definiton of done, goon for the engineer’s test), then nothing good will happen there.

Answer 2

Put yourself in the place of the customer and change the area, for example, to create a car. You order a hand-assembled car from the master. He collects it, checks whether it starts up or not, and we give it to you for use. You get into a car, drive onto your favorite autobahn and turn on the heat at 100 km/h. At 101 km / h, the front wheels fall off. Pleasant situation? But the master "just assembled the car."
If you look at business in an adult way, then everything is simple:
Everything else is lyrics.
If your team (as the Contractor) does not have a staff of testers, then you must consciously take on the corresponding responsibilities for ensuring the quality of the Product. There is no "developer just writes code". There is "the developer creates the Product". The development team undertakes, in accordance with the Agreement, to create a Product of the expected quality and that's it. How this quality is ensured is a secondary issue and depends on the composition of the team, the existing technical means, and the Product itself as such (many tricky cases are not amenable to sane automation). Accordingly, the budget for ensuring the quality of the Product must be laid in any case, regardless of whether there is a tester or not.

Answer 3

Depends on the size of the organization. In small companies, this is practically the norm.

Answer 4

There is no tester in the company.

this is a marker, it’s not worth working there
in general, yes - it should be able to write competent tests (there’s a catch, not everyone can actually do it), because then they are in CI and so on, the development cycle, in short,
if there is no tester, it’s better there do not work, the need is proven from PMs to psychologists

Answer 5

If an employer pays you to do a certain job, then you must do it.
If you don't like it, go where there are testers.
In fact, dedicated testers do not save you from errors, although, of course, the probability of an error decreases.
PS: I worked at one time in an organization that, in its production, actually tested officially purchased, not cheap software with support. Well, at least the developers worked practically online and there was a direct connection with them. There were enough bugs, incl. serious enough.

Answer 6

Well, find someone who can test your program. Yes, it is difficult to test correctly, because you understand what and how to do so that the program correctly performs certain actions.

Answer 7

Should a developer do manual testing?

For example, I'm too lazy for this. New functionality is simply covered by tests and sent to the development branch. The CI system automatically runs the linter, runs the tests, sometimes runs the coverage test when there are changes in the development branch. If the tests work out successfully, then the implemented functionality is considered conditionally working, and is automatically sent to the test instance for the customer to test.
If everything is ok, you merge the development branch into the main branch, and the same CI system rolls it into production.
If you do everything right, then the risk of errors in production is minimal...

Answer 8

Should a developer do manual testing?

The developer must deal with everything that is written in the contract.
PS. Not the fact that such garbage will be spelled out in the contract literally in the form of a clause. It may be written there that the developer is obliged to provide working software, while a separate tester is not provided.
ZY ZY. It is impossible to foresee everything, so all tests are agreed in advance and included in the TOR. If an emergency situation arose, then this is already the problem of the customer (employer)

Answer 9

From his point of view, it seems to him that he did the testing and his code should work, but he is not entirely sure, because he might have missed something (human factor).

Here such "From his point of view, as it seems to him, he has performed testing and his code should work" - this is a disclaimer of responsibility from oneself. Each developer is required to manually check their changes, and also check all related modules that were affected within the task. It doesn't matter if there are integration/e2e tests or not.

Answer 10

writes tests to the code.

If the authorities understand that this is necessary and gives time for this - everything is fine!
Learn to write tests, run them automatically.

Answer 11

The developer must do what is written in the contract and the job description that he signed. If it is written about testing and fines, then yes. The only question is why, given the current state of the market, the developer subscribes to such conditions.