QA: “not accepted since text differs from specs.”

Me: “but... the text comes from specs, I copy pasted it yesterday, wtf?”

*checking specs versioning*
Specs updated 1 hour ago

Having to input text from jira to the language strings cause design’s too lazy to do it themselves is stupid enough, but the good old “specs changed after the feature is done” gig is a must... to remember you why you hate working for someone.

That's why you version the specs and agree which version is supposed to be implemented.

@Fast-Nop we do! But you can’t expect people to be smart enough to give you detailed specs instead of just writing: do as the design and point to a webapp without versioning!

@devnulli it’s just a prank, bro!

@piratefox The previous version of the spec was already detailed enough that you could copy/paste the text.

@Fast-Nop yes, but in the external website, not on the ticket itself, the ticket was just something on the line of: “see external website”

(Which btw is not that much detailed, giving there is a pre-existent project you have to compare the picture with the project and it is easy when there is a new content, but when they changed something as stupid as 16px margin top instead of 18px is kinda hard to see)

@piratefox Yeah in that case, that's not a bug since the spec version has changed, that's a change request. That should be done via a process for that, in the simplest form some ticket system plus agreement which tickets go into which delivery.

What's more worrying is that QA doesn't seem to have such an infrastructure so that they can't even know against what to test.

@Fast-Nop indeed!

Welcome to the world of software development - it differs a lot from carpentry...

@Oktokolo I know, otherwise I would have written “it’s a plank” not “it’s a prank”.

... sorry, I know where the door is, i didn’t mean to do this super bad pwn, it is unforgivable.

@piratefox
There aren't that much in-progress changes in carpentry, because the result is almost always fully known in advance.

That almost never is the case in software development. The standard case is that the requirements aren't actually known exactly and that results have to be tested in practice to actually know whether they are fit for the job.
Changes in or after development are to be expected.

Your employer is still a dick though.

@Oktokolo don’t misunderstand me, I understand changes after a feature is released or design changes before the ticket is passed to the devs, what I find frustrating is how most often than not design happens while coding because “agile says so” and to design before coding is the monolithic approach. This is a very sad distortion of agile.

The thing I hate is that in some companies, included the one I am in right now, your tickets being reopened is a metrics which is impacted by 3rd parties.

Design changed? Your fault. Someone moves the tickets around by mistake? Your fault! Design changed in 6 months? Well you better bet it’s your fault as clearly this dynamic website in the jira ticket has a different design 6 months after it was closed! We clearly had a bug for 6 months omg!

I worked in gaming so I surrendered to the idea marketing or whoever will just “overstate a little” the requirements sooner or later but I do care a lot if this impacts my evaluations.

@piratefox
Well, your employer is a dick. You might want to change the company if you can't convince them to only evaluate you based on stuff you actually are responsible for.

The remainder of my text is only there because i really like to emphasize the difference of our work from more traditional crafts.

Easy, pass it due scope change mid sprint.
You gotta beat the QA with their own bullshit.