What's the point of software testing?

To find bugs. That was easy! Well, bugs are a natural by-product but aren't really why we test. If we find no bugs does that mean there was no point in testing? I can see why you would initially think 'yes', but consider this: would you rather be told that the new software version you need to install for your phone had been tested with no bugs, or not tested at all?

Which would give you confidence that the new software version wouldn't negatively impact your device? I know I'd certainly like to be confident in knowing that when I update my phone's software that it won’t break the handset.

How do you know that the changes meet the requirements? It's no use taking an upgrade that means the only way to log in is via Face ID if your camera is broken.

What has been done to validate it, giving the user what they actually need? I don't want an upgrade that's going to block WhatsApp and force me to use Facebook messenger.

In some case it's also to highlight risk where an issue has been found but not fixed. This is more unusual, as you'd like all issues to be resolved before pushing an update, but if the upgrade came with a warning that opening Notes would crash the handset then at least I can make an informed decision before deciding whether or not to take the upgrade.

Testing software by no means guarantees the quality of the product. After all, quality is everyone’s responsibility, but it helps reduce the risk of issues being found once it’s released for consumption.

Of course, in completing all of the above it's highly likely that bugs will be raised - they're a big part of day-to-day life as a tester. But all they are is something that allows us to facilitate achieving all of the above and ultimately meeting our primary objective - risk mitigation.

By Carl, Test Team Lead