[gambiting]

Yeah, I agree on principle. But sometimes you look bad in front of QA because you ask them to do their job. To give you an example - I was implementing an achievement for a console game. The achievement took roughly 3-4 hours to test fully. I was specifically told by my manager to do my best to make sure that it works,but not to spend time testing it myself,because it would be a waste of my time - it's QAs job to test things like this. So obviously, when the achievement didn't trigger after 4 hours of testing, I looked like a dick to QA,who just spent 4 hours testing this thing.

Unfortunately some people take this approach for everything and never test their code - that's bad.

[jdmichal]

Seems like you should have been able to give QA a game state that was close to the achievement. Even having QA burn 4 hours of time is wasteful when a game is nothing other than state that can be loaded to any arbitrary point.

[gambiting]

Yeah,but the achievement consisted of 44 individual triggers, and for the test they had to trigger all 44. You couldn't give them a state with 43 already triggered. Not to mention that if you change the achievement triggers you have to wipe the save data in make the new triggers work, so they had to start from scratch every time. But fortunately it only had to be done twice in the entire project.