Testing for the teams that never get a tester
Most software is built by teams too small to hire someone whose only job is quality. BitAssure exists so that those teams still get to find their problems before customers do.
Why it exists
Automated testing normally assumes somebody on the team writes test code. That single assumption is what puts it out of reach for most agencies and small businesses, not the cost of the tools, and not a lack of interest.
So the checking gets done by hand, before a launch, by whoever has time. It is slow, it is never quite the same twice, and it is the first thing dropped when a deadline moves.
BitAssure removes the assumption instead of working around it. You walk through your product once and say what should be true in your own words. Everything after that is repetition, which is the part a computer should have been doing all along.
What we believe
These are the decisions the product keeps coming back to. They explain most of why it works the way it does.
The person who knows should be the person who says
The people who know what a screen is supposed to show are usually not the people who can write a test for it. Every step between those two facts is where coverage gets lost.
A report is for reading, not decoding
If a result needs an engineer to interpret it, it is not really available to the team. Ours is written in the words you used to describe the check.
Charging for idle capacity kills testing
Bill for reserved parallel sessions and a team that tests twice a month pays for what it never touches. Then testing gets cut. Charging in credits, bought before they are spent, keeps light use affordable enough to survive a budget review — and means nobody ever gets an invoice for a month they did not plan.
Say what is not built
Our security and pricing pages list the gaps as plainly as the features. Finding out after signing up is worse for everyone than knowing beforehand.
Built in Gaborone
BitAssure is built in Botswana, for a market where teams are small, budgets are real, and nobody has a quality department to fall back on. That is not a limitation we are designing around, it is the situation the product is designed for, and it applies just as well far beyond here.
It is early. We would rather have a small number of teams using this properly and telling us where it falls short than a large number of sign-ups who never got a second run out of it. If you are in that first group, we would like to hear from you.