Ask HN: Developers – would you ever consider becoming an SDET?
I'm in the unenviable position of trying to hire an SDET(http://jobs.jobvite.com/careers/animoto/job/oWhy2fwx). It's not easy.
Most of the applications you generally get for an SDET job (certainly in my experience in NYC, this may be different nearer to Redmond) are: * Test Automators - people with experience writing automated tests, often in a proprietary scripting language. * New college grads who are just looking for anything with coding * Developers who don't really care about testing and want to get their foot in the door.
Now, any of those could work out great as an SDET if hired, but what I always hope for is someone with experience working as a Developer focused on Test, or even a Developer who genuinely wants to make the switch to SDET.
Of the SDETs that I've talked to, I've found that most wouldn't rule out the possibility of doing some other kind of front-facing dev work, but I can't remember ever meeting a developer who would go the other way. SDETs are rare and getting rarer!
If you search for "SDE to SDET" (just like that, with the quotes) all of the results you get back are STILL about switching from SDET to SDE! Apparently it's unheard-of to move in the other direction.
So I'm curious; if you wouldn't want to work as an SDET, why not? If you have switched to being an SDET, how and why did that happen?
11 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 35.6 ms ] threadI'm not sure why SDET roles leave such a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe it's because they're typically looking for junior devs, or maybe the role just feels too removed-from-the-action.
Ironically, I've worked in positions that would be considered by some to be an SDET role (I spent all day writing tests to raise the coverage on other people's untested code) ...but those roles were advertised as "Senior Software Engineer", and framed as "we need someone senior to come in and look after the code that the junior guys are writing" so I felt better about it. I guess it's all how you frame it. If you take the position that the role is less of a janitor, and more of a manager, then you might attract more senior folks.
I your particular case, I'd also add the advice to remove the coding challenge from step 1. As a senior/lead dev, I'm always up for a coding challenge during the interview process, but only after I've touched base with a real human. I'd never apply to a role that required a challenge up-front just to send in my resume. Just my 2 cents.
- about the challenge in the job application - I actually did another Ask HN about whether that was a good idea. Almost universal agreement that it was not ensued, so I intended it to be very optional. I've not been penalizing anyone who doesn't do it, but I immediately take notice when anyone does. Sounds like I need to go back and work on making it more clear that it's optional.
Also, remember that we're in XXI century, make it REMOTE.
Tbh, the biggest thing was 'getting my foot in the door' and they paid to move me to a location more appealing. But, I've always enjoyed automation (bots, scraping, fuzzing, etc) so it was a good fit for me.
The main concern with SDETs is the lack of mobility and lack of definition. Many places I've seen that have SDETs just have a "SDET" roll. Maybe, a lead roll as well. While they would also have SDE 1-5 + lead + management + etc. So people feel there is no growth, you get in, you do your time, you get out. Others are less dependent on the 'engineering' side. At my first job the SDET didn't use visual studio at all, they used automated testing tools, where they drag/dropped crap to make tests.
A business can exist without tests, but tests can’t exist without a business. I love and appreciate great QA people, but I also believe there is a hierarchy and you can’t ignore it. You can offer a path up, either to manage QA or a future switch to dev. You can offer to pay more for QA. You can integrate dev and QA. But I don’t think you can realistically get the same caliber developer at the same level in pure QA as in pure Dev without it being detrimental to retention and the business. You can try to create parallel org charts for the two roles, but the hierarchy will still form.
And they do devote resources to test - but by hiring testers. It might be great if a company could devote some of its devs to test, but I suspect the reason that they wouldn't is that the devs wouldn't want to.
I take the point about integrating Test and Dev, and probably it would need to lead by example from the Test side...
:) I do also take your point about what actually happens in the real world. This is the kind of response I was expecting - it's super helpful to see it articulated.
- would need to write automated tests, often in a proprietary language (yes I am quoting you, but it hits the nail on the head)
- wouldn't learn anything from the SDE perspective so it is a dead end if I don't want to do SDET forever
- would be under tight deadlines and would be encouraged to write unmanageable code
- would be working on rapidly changing APIs/UIs and so would want to write unmanageable code because there is not too much reason to invest in quality code that will be obsolete in a short time
Generally, it is a potential code monkey job, little skill and domain knowledge required, and easy to outsource.
Aside from career overall and given that I do enjoy automating things, playing against bounds of things, etc. but, again from my personal experience and as indicated, those skills are often in something that doesn't transfer (e.g. proprietary languages) and/or is very product-centric.