Systems | Development | Analytics | API | Testing

In a release test I published in July, Katalon’s AI runner reported seven cases passed and four failed. I could open the steps, inspect their screenshots, and watch the browser session. The failed rows showed which expectations broke. The passed rows deserve the same scrutiny: what had the agent observed before it called each step passed? An AI test runner has to perform the action and judge the outcome. A false pass is a passed verdict when the expected behavior did not occur.

Your team has more changes to test, more environments to cover and less time to maintain regression suites. AI can help produce tests, but that introduces another workload: deciding whether those tests check the right behavior, whether a repair hides a defect and whether the evidence is enough to support a release. Agentic QA tools aim to take on more of that work, from planning and authoring to execution and failure investigation.

There's a conversation happening in a lot of data teams right now. It goes something like this: the lakehouse is clearly where things are heading, Apache Iceberg is becoming the format everyone wants to land in, and the AI use cases the business is asking for need clean, open, queryable data.

Enterprise software organizations allocate most of their total IT budgets to software validation and quality maintenance. According to the Consortium for Information and Software Quality (CISQ), poor software quality drains over $2.41 trillion annually from the US economy in operational failures, technical debt, and unmitigated production incidents.

The device in your pocket easily runs most practical analytics workloads.

If you want to avoid API rate limiting headaches during load testing, start by proactively monitoring usage patterns. Use real-time metrics to catch spikes before they trigger throttling. Tools like LoadFocus make it easier to visualize these patterns and pinpoint problematic clients or endpoints. Review how you structure requests – batching similar calls together and caching predictable responses can cut down on redundant traffic and ease pressure on the API.

As part of my work, I regularly consult with teams comparing Unreal Engine version control performance and weighing whether Perforce P4 is the right fit for their projects. Based on these conversations, I decided to develop a repeatable framework that others can use to objectively benchmark P4 against other version control systems.

Bots make up more than a third of internet traffic, and API endpoints attract more of it than web pages do. Scanners hunting for.env files, credential-stuffing scripts, LLM training crawlers, and the long tail of low-effort probes all hit your gateway before they ever reach a service. Every one of those requests costs you — in upstream load, in noise across your analytics, and in the bill.

Performance analysis only happens when someone has the time to do it. Every team has performance reviews that need to happen on a regular cadence, whether that is reviewing channel performance each week or reporting to clients every month. The focus may change, but the work behind them is often very similar. Someone needs to understand what changed, why it changed, and whether anything needs attention. Then they need to turn those findings into an update and get it to the people who need it.

“Customers can apply a discount code” looks ready for testing. Give that sentence to an AI model and it can produce cases for valid, invalid, expired, and reused codes in seconds. The trouble starts when someone asks what a valid code should do. Which basket is eligible? Does the discount change the displayed total before or after tax? Should the saved order carry the same amount?