In web application platforms, software test automation is growing in popularity. The management are noticing an increasing need for test automation as the requirements continue to change (mainly new criteria are introduced on a daily basis) and the testing window gets narrower and smaller every day. We have wonderful news about this (people who do test automation). However, I’m afraid this is the only encouraging news. And what will happen next? Let’s take a look at this article.
More Myths & Less Facts
Many facets of software test automation have been written about in several papers and books. Let’s talk about a few of these myths and contrast them with the truth. Also, we shall address the different issues that these data raised.
Find more bugs
Some QA managers believe they should be able to uncover more faults using automation. It’s untrue. Let’s give it some thought for a moment. A collection of written test cases are used during the automation process. In most cases, test engineers who are familiar with the application being tested write the test cases. The automation engineers https://testfort.com/automated-testing are then provided the test cases. Most of the time, the test cases that the automation engineers are automating are not very known to them. Automation adds nothing to the process of finding more bugs, including test cases and test scripts. When it comes to identifying bugs, the test scripts will only be as effective as the test cases. Thus, rather than the test scripts, it is the test cases that uncover flaws.
Eliminate or reduce manual testers
Some argue that by eliminating or drastically reducing the need for manual testers over time, automation should ultimately result in cost savings. Definitely untrue. Automation of testing does not have as one of its goals the elimination or reduction of manual testers. Here’s why: as I’ve already mentioned, test scripts are only as good as the test cases, and manual testers are typically the ones that write test cases. They are the people with in-depth knowledge of the application. The majority, if not all, manual testers will quit their jobs if it becomes known that automation would diminish the need for them, and quality will follow them.
Insights
Several QA managers that I have observed are unhappy with their automation. They claim that the tool is not performing its intended function. This true tale involves a client who discovered that the tool they recently purchased does not support the application they are testing. I had the opportunity to work with them for a while (I am not making it up). How is this possible? That does occur more frequently than one might imagine. I’ll come back to this when I talk about potential remedies. In a recent interview, a manager from one of the big telecom companies admitted that, despite spending more than a million dollars and three years on it, automation is still a problem for him. This is really depressing, and I have the impression that he is not alone.
Get Clear Suggestions
Let’s talk about some of the causes of this annoyance and some potential solutions.
Unrealistic expectations
The majority of managers first interact with an automation solution when they view the demo, when everything appears clean and straightforward.
But, when you attempt to use the tool with your application, nothing is quite as lovely and straightforward. Only the information you want to hear will be provided by the suppliers (how easy to use, how simple to set up, how it will save time and money, how it will help you find more bugs etc.). As a result, erroneous hopes and expectations are raised.
Lack of planning
From tool selection to implementation, there must be a lot of planning. Tools can be chosen in a step-by-step procedure by examining them first. One of the steps is the tool audience. This would be the best method of choosing a tool. Due to the various parties’ daily workloads, it might not occur everywhere. Yet, since they will be the ones using the product on a daily basis, user participation in the process is crucial. If the users had been involved in the selection process, I’m virtually positive that what happened to one of my clients would not have happened.
Lack of a process
Failure of automation may also result from a lack of a process. The majority of places do have a procedure in place. Although it varies from place to place, developers typically write code in accordance with a set of specifications. There shouldn’t be any changes to the GUI if the requirement does not demand them. Yet, there is an issue in the process if the GUI keeps changing constantly from one release to the next with no apparent need for that modification. Even with the best tool and environment design in place, you may still experience issues with automation due to a flawed process.
Conclusion
QA management must be made aware of the advantages and restrictions of automation. It is necessary to distinguish between the truth and fantasy. But here’s the issue: rather than starting from scratch, consultants are typically hired to remedy issues from earlier initiatives. The managers have already become aware of the dangers of automation at this time. Most automation engineers will concur with me that spending more time up front researching the styles and approaches of automation and choosing an architecture that matches the environment is the best way to prevent this unpleasant experience. Without a question, automation greatly improves the whole QA process. Yet, lack of planning and expertise about automation can also result in a horror.
