Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Shan Jodhi's avatar

This is a really grounded take on metrics and I appreciate how you keep pulling the conversation back to intent, not just measurement. Metrics only matter if they drive better decisions, and the way you frame bug clusters, escape rate, and customer signals makes that very clear. I especially like the reminder that a product can technically have zero known bugs and still be low quality if customers are confused, frustrated, or disengaged.

The emphasis on finding issues earlier also resonates. Looking at where and when bugs are discovered often tells a more useful story than raw counts. If most meaningful defects are still being reported by customers, that is usually a signal to invest upstream, whether that is in better acceptance criteria, earlier testing, or tighter collaboration during development.

On the automation side, calling out flakiness and the purpose of automated tests is important. Tests that rarely catch bugs but reliably prevent regressions and enable faster changes are still doing valuable work. Having visibility into that data, alongside manual and exploratory coverage, helps teams avoid optimizing for the wrong outcomes. Centralizing this information in a shared place using something like Tuskr can also make these metrics more actionable instead of just interesting.

Pritesh Usadadiya's avatar

[[..Pingback..]]

This article was curated as a part of #126th Issue of Software Testing Notes Newsletter.

https://softwaretestingnotes.substack.com/p/issue-126-software-testing-notes

Web: https://softwaretestingnotes.com

No posts

Ready for more?