标签：#testing

Microsoft on Tuesday took the wraps off Adaptive Spec-driven Scoring for Evaluation and Regression Testing, an open source framework for spinning up AI evaluations.

Image by upklyak on Magnific Run an application. Click a few buttons. If the terminal doesn't have errors, then everything is working. Right? What's the point of writing tests if all seems to be fine. Let's explore testing discipline and why it's a habit every developer should build early. What is Testing Discipline? Testing discipline is the habit of verifying that your code works. It's not something you do at the end of a project. It's something you build into your development process. The goal is simple. Catch bugs as early as possible. A bug found while writing code usually takes minutes to fix. The same bug found in production can take hours to investigate, reproduce, and resolve. The earlier you find problems, the less expensive they become. Different Types of Tests When people talk about testing, they're usually referring to three categories. The first is unit testing . A unit test checks a single piece of functionality, usually a function or method. These tests are fast and easy to write, making them the best place for beginners to start. Next are integration tests . These verify that different parts of your application work together correctly. For example, does your service communicate properly with the database? Finally, there are end-to-end tests . These simulate a real user interacting with the application from start to finish. They provide the most realistic results but are usually slower and more complex. As a beginner, I recommend that you should focus on unit tests first. Different Testing Approaches As you continue learning, you'll come across different testing methodologies. One of the most popular is Test-Driven Development , often called TDD. The idea is simple. Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write enough code to make it pass. Many developers like this approach because it forces them to think about requirements before writing implementation details. You may also hear about Behaviour-Driven Development , or BDD. This approach focuses on desc

I build a security platform. Last night I stopped adding features and did something less fun and more honest: I sat down to make every capability prove it actually works — end to end, with real data, demanding a real pass or fail. "It ran" is not a pass. A page that renders is not a feature. A green checkmark is a claim, not evidence. So I went capability by capability and tried to break each one. I found four real bugs and one of them was a gut-punch: a whole detection engine that was wired into the UI, unit-tested, and never actually ran in production. Here's how the night went. The rule: drive it, don't admire it My method was boring on purpose. For each capability: Feed it real input through the real entry point (CLI or API), not a test fixture. Check the data actually landed (query the DB, don't trust the success message). Feed it a malicious input and a benign input — it has to fire on one and stay quiet on the other. The detection engine passed cleanly. I threw a PsExec process event at it and it lit up: $ zds-core detection eval --event '{"event_type":"process_create","process_name":"psexec.exe"}' 1 alert ( s ) : [ high] PsExec Execution — ( matched: map[process_name:psexec.exe] ) A wevtutil cl Security event tripped a critical "Log Clearing" rule. A plain notepad.exe matched nothing. Good — it detects, and it doesn't cry wolf. (Small UX papercut I fixed while I was there: if you forgot the event_type field, the engine silently matched nothing and printed "no rules matched" — which reads exactly like "you're safe." Now it warns you that the event can't match any rule. Silence that looks like safety is the most dangerous output a security tool can produce.) The one that hurt: ITDR Identity Threat Detection and Response. The engine has detectors for impossible travel, credential spraying, brute force, privilege escalation. All unit-tested. All green. I ran the real flow: POST two login events for one user — New York, then London thirty minutes later. That's ~5

There is a specific failure mode in AI-assisted QA work that most tooling discussions skip entirely, and it shows up earliest when you are working solo on a real engagement. Every new chat session is stateless. You paste the ticket, describe the feature, explain your severity logic, set up the context, and by the time the AI is actually useful, you have rebuilt your methodology from scratch for the third time that week. That is not a workflow problem you fix with better prompts. It is an architecture problem, and the fix is a skill file. QAJourney has a full breakdown of this system at qajourney.net/ai-qa-workflow-for-real-projects, including the actual skill files as free downloads. The short version: a skill file is a context document you load as a system prompt. It carries your test surface tiers, your three-path testing framework, your bug report format, your severity and priority logic, your Playwright conventions, and an explicit definition of what the AI does and does not get to call. Load it once per session. The AI operates inside your methodology from the first message instead of a blank slate. The local LLM layer solves a different problem. On a freelance or retainer engagement, tickets contain real product logic and real client data. Sending that to a cloud API on every session is a data exposure question whether or not it rises to a compliance issue. Running Ollama locally with the same skill file as system context keeps the engagement data on the machine. For the output quality required on QA tasks, current 7B to 14B models are sufficient. The cost at zero marginal per token makes it infrastructure rather than a service you pay by the session. The three-role setup in the workflow: engineer as judgment layer, cloud AI loaded with the skill file for complex reasoning and active session output, local LLM for lightweight tasks and client data work. The skill file is the constant across all three. The part that took time to internalize: AI dev teams already

By Suryansh Sinha (sinxcos07) Introduction Recently, I built AstroFit , a fitness-focused web application as a personal project to learn more about modern web development, deployment, databases, and building complete applications from idea to production. This project helped me understand how different parts of a web application work together, from the user interface to backend functionality and deployment. Why I Built AstroFit I wanted to work on a project that felt practical and useful while also helping me improve my development skills. Instead of creating a simple clone project, I decided to build a fitness application where I could experiment with real-world features and deployment workflows. Development Journey Building AstroFit involved much more than just creating pages and connecting them together. Some of the areas I explored while working on this project included: Frontend development Backend integration Database management Authentication systems Deployment and hosting Debugging production issues One of the biggest learning experiences was understanding how different technologies communicate with each other in a complete application. Future Plans I plan to continue improving AstroFit by adding more features, refining the user experience, and expanding its capabilities over time. This project is still evolving, and I'm excited to keep working on it. Project Links Live Demo: astrofit-fitness.vercel.app GitHub: sinxcos07 / astrofit-frontend Fitness platform combining workout tracking and astrology-inspired personalization. AstroFit AstroFit is a modern fitness web application that combines workout tracking with astrology-inspired personalization to create a unique and engaging fitness experience. Features Modern responsive UI Astrology-inspired fitness experience Workout tracking interface User authentication system Backend integration Smooth and interactive design Mobile-friendly layout Tech Stack Frontend HTML5 CSS3 JavaScript Backend Node.js Express.js SQL

Based on real QA scenarios. About what happens when AI-generated metrics replace real testing, and the quiet engineer in the back row has been running his own numbers the whole time. Act 1: The Review Meeting I was sitting at the back of the long table, a ThinkPad in front of me, screen dimmed. On the big screen, Zhang Lei was presenting the acceptance data for his "AI Automated Testing Platform." His delivery was smooth. Every slide was a beautiful chart — coverage trends, automation rate improvements, regression testing time curves. All three lines pointed up and to the right, exactly like the textbook ideal curves. "In the past three months, the AI testing platform has executed 47,000 test cases, achieving 97.3% functional coverage. Regression testing time has dropped from 12 hours to 2.1 hours." Sparse applause. Zhang Lei added the final slide: "Monthly savings: approximately 200 person-days in labor cost." General Manager Zhou nodded and started the applause. That number was what he cared about most. I glanced at the other end of the table — the client's representative from RuiJie Technology. Chief Engineer Shen. Early fifties, thinning on top, silver-rimmed glasses. He hadn't said a word through the entire presentation. Hands folded on the table, occasionally jotting notes in a small book. Zhang Lei opened the Q&A slide and looked around the room: "Any questions?" Chief Engineer Shen flipped through the printed materials in front of him, stopped at the appendix, and looked up. "Page 47, Table 3.2 — what's the confidence interval on that 97.3% coverage?" The room went silent for about 15 seconds. Not the kind of silence where people are thinking. The kind where nobody had ever thought about it. Zhang Lei stood by the projector, clicker still in his hand, paused for two seconds: "Uh... the model confidence is quite high. The specific number is in the technical report." "Which page?" "I'll need to look it up." Chief Engineer Shen didn't push further. He looked do

After months of using Jest for unit testing, we decided to take the plunge and migrate to the built-in node:test runner. The results were surprising, with some features working seamlessly and others requiring significant rework. In this post, we'll share our journey and the lessons we learned along the way. Introduction to node:test The node:test runner is a built-in testing framework that comes with Node.js. It's designed to be fast, efficient, and easy to use. Here's an example of a simple test using node:test: import { test } from ' node:test ' ; import { Command } from ' @aws-sdk/client-lambda ' ; test ( ' Lambda client test ' , async ( t ) => { const lambdaClient = new Command (); const response = await lambdaClient (); t . equal . responseStatusCode , 200 ; }); Warning: When using node:test, make sure to handle errors properly, as unhandled errors can cause the test runner to crash. Migrating from Jest to node:test Migrating from Jest to node:test requires some changes to your test code. One of the main differences is the way you handle ES modules. In Jest, you can use the jest.config.js file to configure how ES modules are handled. In node:test, you need to use the --test-type option to specify the type of test you're running. Here's an example of how to migrate a Jest test to node:test: // jest.test.js import { lambdaClient } from ' ../lambdaClient ' ; describe ( ' Lambda client test ' , () => { it ( ' should return 200 ' , async () => { const response = await lambdaClient (); expect ( response . statusCode ). toBe ( 200 ); }); }); // node-test.test.js import { test } from ' node:test ' ; import { lambdaClient } from ' ../lambdaClient ' ; test ( ' Lambda client test ' , async ( t ) => { const response = await lambdaClient (); t . equal ( response . statusCode , 200 ); }); Tip: Use the --coverage option to generate code coverage reports for your tests. Overcoming Incompatibilities and Limitations One of the main limitations of node:test is that it does not su

Here’s why Anthropic and OpenAI are on board with Illinois safety testing.

Why We Built JaisCloud — A Free, Single-Binary AWS Emulator in Go If you've ever tried to test AWS-dependent code locally, you've probably reached for LocalStack. It works — but it comes with baggage: Python runtime, Docker dependency, and the features most teams actually need locked behind a Pro subscription. JaisCloud is our answer to that problem. What is JaisCloud? JaisCloud is a free, open-source local AWS cloud emulator written entirely in Go. It implements the exact AWS wire protocols — Query/XML, JSON/Target, REST — so your existing SDK code points at JaisCloud and works unmodified. No shims, no proxy rewrites, no SDK patches. # Start it jaiscloud-aws start # Point your SDK at it export AWS_ENDPOINT_URL = http://localhost:4566 export AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID = test export AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY = test export AWS_REGION = us-east-1 # Your existing code works — no changes needed aws s3 mb s3://my-bucket aws sqs create-queue --queue-name my-queue The Problem With Existing Solutions JaisCloud LocalStack Community Moto Single static binary Yes No - Python + Docker No - Python library Zero runtime deps Yes No No Postgres persistence Yes Pro only No Real Spark/EMR execution Yes No No Apache Iceberg Yes No No Prometheus metrics Yes Pro only No State export / import Yes No No Deterministic time control Yes No No Written in Go Yes No No License Apache-2.0 Apache-2.0 Apache-2.0 Key Features Single Static Binary JaisCloud ships as a single Go binary per cloud. No Python, no Docker, no Node — just download and run. Works on laptop, CI runner, or Kubernetes pod. # Download and run — that is it ./jaiscloud-aws start # Or with Docker docker run --rm -p 4566:4566 rjaisval/jaiscloud-aws:latest Portable State Snapshots Export the complete emulator state — every resource, every account, every region to a single gzip tarball and restore it anywhere in milliseconds. # Capture a baseline jaiscloud-aws export -o baseline.tar.gz # Restore on a teammate's machine or CI runner jaiscloud-aws i