The AI Test Report Said 97.3% Coverage. The Client's Lead Engineer Asked One Question. The Room Went Silent.
A recent meeting showcased an AI Automated Testing Platform that claimed 97.3% functional coverage. However, a client's chief engineer raised concerns about the confidence interval of this figure, leading to an uncomfortable silence in the room. The author's own calculations suggested the actual coverage was significantly lower, highlighting potential discrepancies in the AI-generated metrics.
- ▪The AI testing platform executed 47,000 test cases and reported 97.3% functional coverage.
- ▪The client's chief engineer questioned the confidence interval of the reported coverage, causing silence in the meeting.
- ▪The author's independent calculations indicated the actual coverage was under 30%, raising concerns about the reliability of the AI metrics.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
try { if(localStorage) { let currentUser = localStorage.getItem('current_user'); if (currentUser) { currentUser = JSON.parse(currentUser); if (currentUser.id === 3941526) { document.getElementById('article-show-container').classList.add('current-user-is-article-author'); } } } } catch (e) { console.error(e); } xulingfeng Posted on May 30 The AI Test Report Said 97.3% Coverage. The Client's Lead Engineer Asked One Question. The Room Went Silent. #ai #automation #productivity #testing 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.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at DEV.to (Top).
Discussion
0 commentsMore from DEV.to (Top)
