nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Quality of QA

Paul M

@Mark Barnes (Logos) thanks for your post outlining the shift away from public betas. As you perhaps know I've raised concerns over a number of years regarding the quality of QA at Logos and was interested to read in your announcement a renewed emphasis on QA. However I think significant concerns remain regarding the QA of the mobile apps. I regularly find UI problems with both Android and iOS app, both release and beta. I've posted most, but not all of these on the forum over years. I have to say that most of those I've posted about in recent months are very obvious problems which should have been found earlier in the QA process prior to being in a release build. This leads me to ask: What confidence can we have that the pattern of regular UI issues occurring in release builds has been arrested? Recent experience shows this not to the case, in my view at least.

thanks

Paul

Find more posts tagged with

Mobile App

Comments

Mark Barnes (Logos)

Thanks, Paul.

I haven't seen all of the bug reports you've posted recently, but I know they've been passed on to the team. Thank you for your diligence in making these reports.

I checked seven of the most recent bugs you reported, and it looks to me as though they are long-standing issues that have recently been discovered. Our manual QA and testing focuses on new code that we write (until we get reports like yours, of course). We also have automated tests that help ensure we don't reintroduce old bugs. So while I know that old bugs are as frustrating as new ones (perhaps more so), the fact that these are old bugs, no new ones, gives me hope that our QA is improving.

Paul M

Understood, I guess it begs the question why QA effort has not been directed over the years into covering the parts of the system, that whilst not new code, did not have sufficient QA when they were initially written? The need is demonstrated clearly by the plethora of UI issues. I think also that many of the bugs could have been identified as a QA team traversed and used the system, as I did. Almost all are easy to find or complicated to repro. What consideration has been given to providing better test coverage of existing code/features rather than just new?