<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Documentation on Rachel Joi</title><link>https://racheljoi.com/tags/documentation/</link><description>Recent content in Documentation on Rachel Joi</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 May 2016 08:01:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://racheljoi.com/tags/documentation/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>a documentation argument</title><link>https://racheljoi.com/posts/a-documentation-argument/</link><pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2016 08:01:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://racheljoi.com/posts/a-documentation-argument/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;I&amp;rsquo;m testing some vendor-supplied software, and I&amp;rsquo;ve been testing a variety of functions and integrations. I&amp;rsquo;ve been more deliberate in my testing on this project, less monkey-at-a-keyboard and more creative thinking about how it might be broken. I&amp;rsquo;m testing things that aren&amp;rsquo;t necessarily documented in the requirements. I got some push-back about it, that we should only be documenting (and even running) tests that have written requirements. That&amp;rsquo;s basically telling me that I shouldn&amp;rsquo;t do a thorough job because someone else didn&amp;rsquo;t do a thorough job. And that&amp;rsquo;s not how I want to work.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>