I am working as a manual and automation tester for a financial company.
Testers in my company don't have access to the source code of our applications, we have limited access rights to our version control repositories (git). This is due to confidentiality and security obligations - a general rule says that each employee in the company should have only a minimal access to resources (information, systems etc.) which are essential to complete her work, but access to information not related to her work should be limited.
Someone has decided that testers have not needed the access to the source code to complete their work. It was long ago, at a time when we were using a waterfall model, and QA team was separated from development. But now we are transitioning to Agile, testers and devs are now combined into one scrum.
I have discussed this topic with a few developers that have worked for other companies in their careers, and they have told me that this is a "strange" rule, and testers have the access to the codebase elsewhere.
I am going to convince management to relax this rule and give testers at least the read-only access to the source code, and I am looking for arguments for this change - and also if there are any potential disadvantages or threats?
Some arguments for I can imagine:
- Tester can do code reviews and find some bugs directly in the code
- Tester looking at the code learns the architecture of the product, this helps her to design better test cases
- Tester can write unit tests and integration tests instead of developers
- insight into the code can help tester to better diagnose a bug
- Tester looking at the code can propose some changes that make UI automation easier
- Tester can support developers and make same small and easy changes, letting developers to stay focused on more complex things
- what else ?