Do tools capture the more functional aspects of testing better? Is software that is developed better, so less of that kind of work is required?
So as an example, we are developing an API for others to consume. You would think we could test this mostly with test automation built by developers — Aka Shift-Left aka Modern Testing Principles and findings from Accelerate DevOps research. Or we could have test engineers/SDETs build this, as @al8xr mentions. Or they might be called “testers” but must code as part of the job as @willyjamesfold mentions.
What things do you see they get stuck on? I always love to hear examples.
The least effective way in the case above would be to write “classic” step-based test cases for things automation could solve. Depending on what you built, but given the range of low-code automation tools, we can generally automate more and more. (not everything though).
I think it’s a bit too early to say if the impact has been positive or negative. I think that a QA Professional Bootcamp has great potential, but it needs to be created and led by the right people.
I started seeing QA bootcamps in the US in 2021. They’re not backed by anyone that I know from our community. I’ve met a few grads via networking. They seem happy with the experience but struggle to find work upon graduation (I’m chalking this up to long-term market volitility–the is an extremely competitive job market for an entry-level professional).
I’ve seen folks complete both ISTQB and the Bootcamp but I don’t know anyone that chose one over the other. The bootcamps are around $5,000, so I suppose no one’s concerned about an additional $200 for ISTQB.
I someone asked me , I wouldn’t recommend ISTQB as a viable training option for someone hoping the enter the field. You don’t receive enough practical knowledge for day-to-day work by studying for the Foundation exam.
I am hoping that an organization like MoT, AST, or PNWSQ creates a certification from a trustworthy source.