Lightroom Quality Assurance dpt. Please tell us how it works.

  • 12
  • Question
  • Updated 8 months ago
Hi,

As a former developer and software engineer, I do know that delivering a 100% bug free software is just a dream. However, when I see the kind of bugs that are reaching the public release level in Lightroom, I doubt about the existence of a QA dpt. at Adobe.

I'm not talking about bugs that are difficult to detect, that appear only under certain circumstances or on certain hardware configurations. I'm talking about bugs that are immediately visible by everyone when using the new or modified features of a product.

LR 7.3 introduces a new way of managing and using presets and profiles. Very nice. So that's the first things that the QA dpt. should test. If they had, they should have seen that :
  • preset management commands like Rename and others have disappeared for folders
  • sorting is just a mess
  • presets, profiles and leftovers are spread over our disks without any consistency
  • etc. (just read the numerous reports about these problems)

You launch LR 7.3 for the first time in order to test the new Profile/Preset features and you see that immediately.

How can a QA dpt. manage to let these obvious bugs bubble up to the public release ? I'm really curious.

Or are we the QA dpt. ?

Photo of Patrick Philippot

Patrick Philippot

  • 430 Posts
  • 92 Reply Likes
  • incredulous

Posted 8 months ago

  • 12
Photo of Renato Richina

Renato Richina

  • 19 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Thanks! Exactly my opinion. Hiwever i think there will be bi official answer. Adobe should pull back this buggy version and release a bugfix 7.3.1 very soon
Photo of avpman

avpman

  • 98 Posts
  • 65 Reply Likes
We are the Beta testers and QA and we are PAYING Adobe for the "privilege."
Photo of Renato Richina

Renato Richina

  • 19 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
I more have the feeling Alpha testers
Photo of Thuy Vy Vu

Thuy Vy Vu

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I have just finished updating all my adobe and having to rollback PS because of Actions not working.  Now I am reading of issues with LR too and now I dunno what to do.
Photo of Stephen Soukup

Stephen Soukup

  • 19 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
what do you think they are doing with your $9 per month :)
Photo of Cletus Lee

Cletus Lee

  • 88 Posts
  • 22 Reply Likes
There was a time the Adobe introduced new versions as Beta first and users were encouraged to help find bugs before the final version was released to the general public for sale.  Running the Beta was optional.
Now the final version is released to the general public fraught with bugs that should have been caught in QA testing.  The perception by the consumer is that Adobe releases buggy untested software and this ultimately degrades Adobe's reputation.   I was gladly a beta tester the that option was available.  Now I have no choice to upgrade into an untested version of Lightroom that exposed my production catalog to great risk   I think it is time that Adobe reverted to the old method of beta testing and let the adventurous users beta test the product on a test catalog and not on a production catalog.  And then schedule a production release to the general public. 
Photo of sangean

sangean

  • 25 Posts
  • 22 Reply Likes
I am just as frustrated. It beggars belief heads do not roll with the state Lightroom has ended in over the past few years.

After several years of negect, 7.2 was an improvement (though not across the board as it introduced new issues). Now 7.3 is disaster. In the first 15 minutes of using it I encountered 4 or 5 bugs already.


We run a small professional photography company and depend on Lightroom. We do not get it for free, we pay more money than we should. 

If Lightroom was a physical product you would actually take it back and demand a full refund.
Photo of Ellen Garvey

Ellen Garvey

  • 5 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
How about the engineers who develop it?  THEY should be making it less buggy.  QA is to "Assure" the quality - but developers should make a quality product first.  You cannot test quality into a product - you need to design and build it in.  That said, apparently neither is in place.
Photo of Patrick Philippot

Patrick Philippot

  • 429 Posts
  • 92 Reply Likes
Hi Ellen,

For sure, there are development methodologies allowing to produce a much less buggy code and to do regression testing during the development. I'm sure that such methodologies are not used at Adobe because some kinds of bugs won't appear if it were the case. Using such methodologies is too often considered as a penalty by project managers because this lengthen the development time. I know, I have been teaching these methodologies for years. When you explain to them that this would be a benefit for their company and their customers, they tell you that this will be an additional cost for their department.  So they prefer to transfer the additional workload and cost to the QA dpt.  And this is how the idea of making the customer the QA dpt. finally emerged.

Normally, a QA is always necessary because a developer is not the best person for testing the code he/she wrote. Just because they do know  how their code work, they will test it according to this knowledge. Doing this, they will never behave as a standard user.  A QA engineer will not have any idea about the code internals. He will likely be using the code as a simple user, doing things that were not expected by the developer. As stated above, we are obviously the best QA engineers that Adobe could ever hire. What's best than an employee who is paying his boss for doing the job ? But this is a mistake : QA engineers can directly talk to the developers. We can't. That's the trick.
Photo of avpman

avpman

  • 98 Posts
  • 65 Reply Likes
"Normally, a QA is always necessary because a developer is not the best person for testing the code he/she wrote. Just because they do know  how their code work, they will test it according to this knowledge." - SO TRUE!
Photo of Stephen Soukup

Stephen Soukup

  • 19 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
@Ellen - I couldnt agree more. As a Certified Quality Engineer (CQE) and Manager and Continuous Improvement Manager for manufacturing companies, you have to BUILD in processes and procedures and training to ensure your process is controlled and PREVENTS problems from happening and also to ensure if a problem does happen it doesnt escape to the CUSTOMER (us).   I would suggest Adobe use some of the principles from ASQ (American Society for Quality) and hire some QEs and Certified Software Quality Engineers (SQE). Using the basic guidelines of ISO 9001:2015 or similar Quality Assurance System guidelines would be helpful. And no you cant inspect in quality it has to be there from the start as manual  inspection is only 75% effective. Use the principles of Lean to take our waste in the process to speed up the cycle times but also use Root Cause and Corrective Action techniques like 5-Whys, and Fishbone Analysis to get to the ROOT of why these types of problems are occurring and find out if they are independent from each other or a more serious SYSTEMATIC  which can affect many different programs/projects at once.  The key is :  "Garbage In =====>  Garbage Out"
(Edited)
Photo of eartho

eartho

  • 864 Posts
  • 240 Reply Likes
As of late, Adobe has been timing the release of these updates with external events. With 7.3, NAB was their deadline and they had to release updates to multiple apps regardless of bugs.

I'm sure they were very aware of all the preset issues, but the marketing dept doesn't give a crap about users, only that they have something to release at deadline.
Photo of avpman

avpman

  • 98 Posts
  • 65 Reply Likes
I'll bet a buck Adobe will use this as an excuse to raise the cost of the CC plan. (To put more resources into CC.)