Did I get your attention? I'm a for real? Do I actually mean that?
Yes, I will state that testing is dead!
You probably disagree; How can test be dead, if we do not test how can we ensure a high product quality, how can we validate that the system works as intended, how can we verify that the functionality works?
Well, the statement "test is dead" is based on the context in which we normally would test; re-actively! Testing is re-actively verifying and validating a solution. "But we have shifted left, we do reviews, we are involved early in the process, whenever something is ready for either static or dynamic testing" - exactly my point - when something allready has been created = a re-active action.
Shift-left is simply not enough, we must enter the scene way earlier, we must be present when the solution is being formed, being discussed, being detailed from idea level to Release theme, features, epics, user stories, so not reviewing, but being part of the creation.
My thesis is based on the power of 3, the 3 amigos concept; At least 3 different roles / archetypes must be involved in the creation of the requirements (what ever form they are in) to ensure that as many angles to the requirement / solution are taken into consideration. If 1 person alone writes a requirement there will be undocumented assumptions, expected levels of knowledge, tendencies to "happy path" the solution. The more roles you involve, the more angles you get to a given solution, hence assumptions and other issues are identified before the solution is being described and created.
One of these roles is of cause the "tester" who really shouldn't spend time on testing, but rather must spend time on facilitating and securing quality in the process and in the description of the solution (requirement, epic, user story - what ever), and that is why I state that test is dead.
We must be involved as soon as something starts, we must ensure that we wander of the happy path and challenge assumptions. If we do that right, if we ensure, or rather contribute to the quality assurance of the product up front, we do not have to test re-actively, or at least we can minimize the amount of testing needed.
Statement; Prevention over detection! Be pro-active over being re-active!
So, testers are no longer testers! I'd prefer the title Quality Facilitator, which in my mind makes so much more sense. It really states what we should do, instead of what we have been doing.
It makes sense in the agile context where the team is responsible for the quality of the product, it makes sense in the context of Acceptance Test Driven Development, Behaviour Driven Development, Test Driven Development where the test cases that we create simply are an outcome of the conversation that we have about writing / building the right requirement / solution, and we can of casuse benefit from these test cases to re-actively ensure that we have build it correct, that we can state when we are done, but neither ATDD, BDD or TDD's main focus is to create test cases, it is to create the conversation - pro-actively.
So test is maybe really not dead, but the attention needs to shift beyond left, tests must become a byproduct of the conversation of doing things right from the beginning