We don't do this at our firm, but one of my friends says that his project manager asked every developer to add intentional bugs just before the product goes to QA. This is how it works:Just before the product goes to QA, the development team adds some intentional bugs at random places in the code. They properly back up the original, working code to make sure that those bugs aren't shipped with the end product.Testers are also informed about this. So they will test hard,because they know there are bugs present and that not finding them mightbe considered as a sign of incompetence.If a bug (intentional or otherwise) has been found, they will be reported for the development team to fix. The development team then adds another intentional bug in a related section of the code just before the product goes to the second-level QA. The project manager says a tester should think like a developer and he/she should expect new bugs in sections where changes were made.Well, this is how it goes. They say that this approach has following advantages.Testers will be always on their toes and they will test like crazy.That helps them to also find hidden (unintentional) bugs so developerscan fix them.Testers feed on bugs. Not finding any bugs will affect their morale.So giving them an easy one to find will help their morale.If you ignore the scenario where one of these intentional bugs gets shipped with the final product, what are the other drawbacks we should consider before even thinking of adopting this approach?Some clarifications:They properly backup the original code in source control.When a tester finds the intentional bug, the development team just ignores it. If tester finds out an unintentional (original) bug, the development team first checks whether it is caused by any of the intentional bugs. That is, the development team first tries to reproduce that on the original working code and tries to fix it if they can.Just ignore the relationship issues between QA and development team. I specifically asked this question on Programmers, not on The Workplace. Consider that there is good rapport between QA and the development team, and they party together after working hours. The project manager is a nice, old gentleman who is always ready to support both teams (Godsend).
Leaving intentional bugs in code for testers to find
testing;teamwork;debugging;bug