This sprint for the Ministry of Testing Bloggers Club the topic was "Critic some widely known/accepted concept in the testing community" Being that I have never really been a full fledged member of a testing community I don't know what they widely accept.
The one thing for years it was thought that testers were not needed, the clients could test the software and give feedback as soon as it was released. That caused a lot of issues with calling clients to tell them things have gone horribly wrong. Then the age of manual testers came and all was well, but as software evolves so does Testing. The age of automated testing has been happening everywhere.
A belief that has also been spreading in bigger companies is that they can just patch it so feel free to release it to the customer. We can fix it when they complain as patches are so readily available. This is very prevalent in the gaming community to the point where sometimes you have to pay to fix a bug.
With automated testing growing some think that the manual tester is a dinosaur no longer needed and all they need it automation. Robots then rule the world and order is obtained. Automation can not test everything, the human brain is more complex and is needed for full testing. Automation is a great tool for repetitive and simple test.
What is really needed is a good balance of automation and manual testing. Automation does basic test leaving manual testing to be more in dept.
QA Hipster is a Quality Assurance Technical Lead for an software company, mostly working with Macs. I have been in the field since September 2013, and have a bachelor's degree in Management Information Services. I started my studies at Iowa State in Software Engineering. I have been working on moving my company forward with the latest QA techniques.