A Tester’s Guide to Working Effectively with Developers
 |
Collaboration between testers and developers is more than beneficial in software development – it is crucial. Yet even when we have the same goal of providing high-quality software, these roles can feel at odds with one another. This often led to testers feeling that developers blew them off, and developers feeling that testers got too picky and were more interested in criticizing than helping. We are all too familiar with developers turning a blind eye to the known bugs or the good old IT works on my machine being shared as a reply; this can act as a roadblock in team performance.
But this antagonistic dynamic need not be inevitable. Through mutual respect, communication, and joint quality ownership, testers and developers can act as a powerful team that brings value through all stages of the development process.
| Key Takeaways: |
|---|
|
Understanding Developer Mindsets
You need to think like a developer to get the most out of your testing. Most developers are concerned with working code, hitting deadlines, and getting the features or software working to requirements. They are typically judged by their output, how many features they complete, and how quickly they resolve issues. This focus on productivity can lead developers to prioritize efficiency over exhaustive testing.
Furthermore, developers are usually under a tight schedule, so they might justify their code writing for “it’s good enough” rather than “it’s right”. Developers also get attached to their code in many instances. This emotional investment makes them more prone to take feedback to heart, especially when they feel it is criticism. Plus, fatigued after long hours of designing and bug fixing, developers are unlikely to be motivated to dive further into an issue they don’t understand right away.
Example: A tester reports a bug for a UI flickering issue caused by client-side code, reproduced only in Firefox. The developer dismisses this, considering Chrome designates work just fine, and Firefox is a small percentage of the browser-using public. You might think this dev response is kind of dismissive, but what it comes down to is about prioritization. Here, the tester should be ready to communicate about the problem in business terms, rather than as a bug to be resolved.
Establishing Mutual Respect
Effective teamwork is built upon respect. It’s not something that can be asked for; it has to be earned by conducting yourself with a professional demeanor all the time. Developers respect testers when they show they have a deep understanding of the product and its technical aspects, a “coolest” attitude toward the tech side, and a willingness to face problems.
Testers know the product inside out, including its edge cases and business logic, and they contribute in a way that developers appreciate. Speaking in technical terms, such as referring to specific API calls, interpreting logs, or identifying HTTP status codes, helps testers communicate more effectively and builds credibility. Testers should also refrain from a blame attitude.
Developers also have more respect for testers who provide reproducible steps and objective evidence to support their bug reports. If they submit “App crashes” without steps or a log, the developer will say, “Cannot reproduce.” Please provide more details.” But if the tester writes, “App breaks in iOS 16.3 when you hit submit on the payment form with a blank credit card info. Steps: 1. Logs attached”, etc.) are more likely to get them a helpful response. Read: Best Practices for Creating an Issue Ticket.
Effective Communication Tactics
Communication is the key in any co-working space. Testers should strive to produce clear and actionable bug reports and tickets. This includes clear titles, orderly reproduction steps, environment reporting, and clearly expressing expected vs. actual behaviour. Furthermore, the style of written correspondence must be respectful and assertive; sarcasm, passiveness, and passive-aggressiveness are to be avoided without exception.
Example: A video or an animated screenshot (GIF) can illustrate much better than a long write-up. For instance, instead of posting a vague bug with a title of “user sometimes stuck,” which is not descriptive enough to attempt to replicate, a tester could post “BUG: Navigation freezes when user double clicks ‘Submit’ on Form X, where X is the name of the affected form.” This clarity quotient increases the likelihood that the bug will be understood and fixed quickly.
Navigating Common Conflicts
Conflict between testers and developers is inevitable at times, but it does not have to be destructive. Understanding common points of friction and responding constructively is key to maintaining healthy working relationships.
A very familiar story is, “That’s not a bug; it’s working as designed.” Testers should not act defensively in such cases. Instead, they must question the proper action and reference the design or requirements. If there is still uncertainty, the team should ask the product owner to clarify further.
A common point of friction that everybody recognizes is when developers say, “It works on my machine.” This is when testers should ask for the development environment and compare it with the test or stage environment. You can simulate the environment and check the issue using tools like Docker containers or browser emulators. Read: What are Docker and Kubernetes, and why do I need them?
Developers occasionally close bugs too early without really fixing them. In these cases, testers can only re-open the bug if they have new evidence (logs, videos, user reports) to provide. Reopening w/o new data can sometimes be interpreted as stirring the pot, so triagers have to make a judgment call about whether/what bugs to push. Read: Defect Lifecycle.
Building Shared Ownership of Quality
Quality assurance is most productive when it is considered a shared responsibility of the tester and the developer. Developers need to be encouraged to be involved in the testing process by being allowed to write unit tests that test the edge cases, such as the failure conditions and the boundary values. Testers can join in code reviews by including more test scenarios (or edge cases) that the dev should consider. Read: How Code Reviews Help QAs.
Shift-left testing practice involves getting involved at an early stage of the development life cycle. Testers and developers collaborate on features. Testers should assist in determining the “definition of done” for stories, which should consist of testing requirements. By collaborating during development, bugs can be caught early, and that’s way before they go into production. For example, testers and developers might be pairs who write the acceptance tests and ensure they are implemented correctly.
Collaborating on Test Cases
Test cases implemented by testers can be very useful tools when developing. Well-written test cases are something that testers can share with developers to demonstrate what possible inputs for the code would be and test them before passing them to formal testing.
Example: A test case titled “User cannot reset password with expired link” might contain a precondition that the password reset link is older than 24 hours, steps to click the link, and an expected result: an error message should display: “Link expired.” That level of specificity provides developers a better way to verify functionality and, as a result, the bugs that are passed to QA. Read: Creating Your First Codeless Test Cases.
Involving Developers in UAT Feedback Loops
User acceptance testing (UAT) sometimes feels like testers and business analysts are responsible, but getting developers involved in UAT can help ensure that everybody has the same understanding and issues get resolved quickly. Having direct feedback from actual users or stakeholders helps shape the mindset of developers. When developers attend UAT sessions, they learn things you can’t learn from a bug report.
Even if the developers can’t join every UAT session, testers need to disseminate selective summaries of UAT results, such as the business impact of problems and proposed courses of action. And, through such summaries, a developer may actually become more sympathetic to the end user and actually be more willing to engage systematically with testing issues.
Managing Bug Prioritization with Empathy
Not all bugs are created equal, and testers must understand the constraints under which developers operate. Bug prioritization should be based on both severity and business impact. Testers should take the time to understand release schedules and competing priorities to better frame their arguments for bug fixes.
For example, reporting a small spelling error on a debug screen meant only for internal developers as “Critical” destroys the credibility of a tester. Developers are going to ignore those, or feel as though the tester doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Testers should instead save red tags for defects that restrict key functionality, pose security risks, or harm the UX. Testers can increase the odds of getting bugs fixed expeditiously by tagging (and explaining why) severity levels judiciously. Read: Understanding Severity vs. Priority in the Life Cycle.
Redefining Tester Identity
Testers must not think of themselves as bug finders. They must be advocates for product quality. Their responsibilities don’t just start with noticing an issue. They should work with the developers to get their feedback during the planning process of new features, deal with test data, and even help with automation and observability.
For testers to assume this broader function, they must shift how they communicate. Instead of saying things like “I’m going to break your code” or “You overlooked this,” testers should frame their interactions with “Let’s do this edge case together” or “What’s the best way to test this situation?” It is this kind of wording that demonstrates a spirit of cooperation and helps prevent developers from getting defensive.
Creating a Culture of Feedback
Sprint retrospectives create a safe space where testers can raise concerns about working relationships. Instead of pointing fingers at people, testers should strive to improve processes. A tester could say, for example, “We had four bugs rejected last sprint with no clear explanation. Is there a way we can better document acceptance criteria or design expectations?” Discussing feedback in terms of team process rather than individual performance enables richer conversation and ongoing development.
Training Developers on Quality
Testers can take the initiative to educate developers about quality practices through lunch-and-learn sessions or informal workshops. Rather than criticizing poor testing practices, testers should offer to teach developers about concepts such as regression debt, writing effective unit tests, or performing negative testing. Most developers appreciate teammates who invest in their growth without condescension.
Wrapping Up
Testers must never forget that developers are not the enemy. Clear and empathetic communication begets trust and lowers friction. Each rejected bug or conflict is an occasion to enhance the process and tighten the collaboration. However, the most important thing is for testers and developers to keep in mind that they have the same goal: to ship higher-quality software that makes users happy.
When the testers can get in the driver’s seat and build bridges, promote the right idea and work together with professionalism to clear up misunderstandings, even the wildest cloudscape of a training room can become a powerful force for change.
| Achieve More Than 90% Test Automation | |
| Step by Step Walkthroughs and Help | |
| 14 Day Free Trial, Cancel Anytime |
