Why Not Let Developers Double as Testers?

Original

Have you ever come across the following question: since testers are required to write code, why not simply have developers take on testing responsibilities as well? While this may sound like a complaint from testers burdened with coding tasks, it serves as a useful starting point for exploring an important issue: why is it not advisable to assign testing roles directly to developers? To be frank, for most organizations, this idea is overly idealistic and would likely lead to complications if implemented. The core values and work methodologies of development and testing are fundamentally different. Forcing these two roles together would ultimately compromise product quality. Developers can conduct unit tests and participate in integration tests, but they cannot fully replace dedicated testers.

1. Cognitive Inertia Is an Insurmountable Barrier

The most significant difference between developers and testers lies not in their coding ability, but in their fundamentally opposing mindsets. Developers adopt a constructive approach: when presented with requirements, they focus on how to implement functionality, ensure logical coherence, and optimize code efficiency.

Our ZenTao team follows a defined product development process that requires developers to conduct self-testing during iterations. However, constrained by their inherent mindset, developers tend to test according to their own implementation paths, making it difficult to break free from established frameworks. In contrast, testers embrace a destructive mindset, with the core objective of uncovering software vulnerabilities. When presented with a feature, testers typically first consider not how to use it correctly, but how to break it. Take a login button as an example: developers might test whether correct credentials allow access and incorrect ones are rejected, then consider the task complete. Testers, however, might examine whether clicking the button fifty times in a row causes lag, how the system handles empty or overly long strings as usernames, and whether error messages remain clear during login failures under poor network conditions. These scenarios often elude developers—not due to a lack of skill, but as an inevitable consequence of cognitive inertia.

2. The Core Value of Testing Extends Beyond Coding

Many people today assume that because testers are required to write code, they are no different from developers. This view is only partially accurate: coding is merely a tool for testers, not the essence of their role. The core competencies of testing lie in scenario design and quality control, which are entirely distinct from the technical implementation skills of developers.

Consider automated testing as an example: developers may write scripts more quickly, but testers create scripts with greater specificity. When writing scripts, developers tend to focus on the core logic of functional implementation; in contrast, the scripts designed by testers cover various edge cases and exception handling processes.

In a previous performance testing project conducted by our team, a script written by a developer only measured the response time under normal concurrency conditions, while testers supplemented test scenarios including peak concurrency, traffic spikes, and performance degradation after prolonged operation. The memory leak issue that was eventually identified only emerged under prolonged operation. Had testing relied solely on the developer’s script, this problem would have gone undetected until after deployment. Moreover, testers must possess a deep understanding of business processes and user needs.

Returning to ZenTao’s product development process, it is precisely for this reason that we require testers to conduct requirement test specification during the planning phase. Testers are tasked with clarifying requirements from the perspective of user operations, framing them in the format of “under what conditions, what actions are performed, and what results are produced.” Subsequently, the aforementioned content is converted into test cases and undergoes validation for effectiveness through the testing phase. This user-centric perspective is not something one gains simply by knowing how to write code; it is a skill cultivated by testers through long-term user-focused thinking. Furthermore, testers are responsible for the overall quality of the product—a holistic view that developers often lack. Developers typically focus on their own modules, while testers must ensure the integrity of the entire business workflow.

For instance, in an online shopping order process involving product inventory, shopping cart, payment, and logistics modules, each developer tests their own component. Testers, however, must validate the entire process—from product selection and cart addition to order placement, payment, and logistics tracking—and assess how failures in one module might impact others. This cross-module quality control is something developers rarely have the time or bandwidth to undertake, as their primary focus must remain on code implementation.

3. Independent Testing Serves as the Ballast of Team Collaboration

Some argue that having developers double as testers can improve efficiency. In reality, the opposite is true—it often severely hampers team efficiency. The core responsibility of developers is writing code, and assigning them testing tasks will inevitably dilute their focus. More importantly, independent testing establishes an effective oversight mechanism. This is similar to how students often fail to spot their own mistakes in exams—the same principle applies to coding. Such oversight is not about finding fault but about ensuring product quality. For small and medium-sized teams, the most reliable approach is to let professionals handle their respective areas of expertise.

Development and testing are not substitutable roles but complementary ones. Developers are responsible for building features, while testers ensure quality control. Both share the same goal: to deliver an excellent product. The requirement for testers to write code today is not meant to turn them into developers but to help them fulfill their testing duties more effectively. Similarly, developers’ involvement in unit testing is not intended to replace testers but to improve their own code quality. Merging these two roles might seem like a way to save resources, but it often sacrifices quality—a classic case of being penny-wise and pound-foolish. How to delineate the responsibilities between development and testing is another topic worthy of further discussion.