You ever have someone who you'd set to QA for a group project, and then find out that - rather than setting up automated testing and writing code that can be run at different times in the development cycle - they just did it by hand, running through the program and deciding that the result they got was good enough?

Imma smack a bitch, then write this shit in their stead.

It takes two to tango.

Automated QA is worthless without human interaction discovering what it needs to be applied to and how.

Otherwise, you're playing guessing games.

@Hypergeek We've clear.... everything, in terms of what needs to be tested, why, and how. Clicking through the code and calling it good enough is worthless.

This wasn't "I don't know what I'm supposed to do, how, or why."
This was "I know what I'm supposed to do, and will instead will do the lazy thing and call it good enough while telling the rest of the group that I've done the thing I agreed to do."