Automated software testing, despite being efficient, continues to be a topic of debate. Renowned for its effectiveness, automated software testing can yield highly precise outcomes, expedite product time-to-market, enhance overall team productivity, and optimize long-term development costs. However, employing automation intelligently is the key to reaping these advantages. What does "intelligently" signify here? Automation has an optimal threshold, and surpassing it may negatively impact efficiency. The potential of test automation is not limitless; hence, it is crucial to automate only what is truly essential and recognize when to halt. Automation scope and the potential benefits differ from one product to another. In this article, we will elucidate the fundamentals of intelligent automation to facilitate a better understanding of this subject matter.
The Software Testing Pyramid is a widely acknowledged principle that serves as a compass for selecting appropriate cases for automation. It emphasizes the significance of unit tests in terms of return on investment, as they effectively prevent critical errors from permeating higher levels. Following unit tests are automated component, integration, and API tests, each playing a crucial role in ensuring the software's smooth operation. At the pinnacle of the pyramid reside the enigmatic GUI tests, notorious for their impracticality - challenging to maintain, often producing false-negative results, and constantly demanding attention.
The Software Testing Pyramid stands as an alternative to the Ice-Cream Cone principle, embodying an entirely different approach. While unit tests receive modest automation, GUI tests are bestowed with abundant attention. However, both models, despite their charm, fail to achieve perfection. Although they find their rightful place in specific scenarios, their universal applicability remains elusive. In practice, it becomes essential to assess the scope of automated tests based on functionality and determine how they align with the organization's overarching business goals. Remarkably, the relevance of geometric shapes or any other symbols within this formula proves to be of trivial importance, for what truly matters is the profound impact it has on the testing landscape.
When it comes to automation, the landscape is filled with uncertainties and queries. The question that arises next is: how can we attain the optimal level of automation? Fortunately, several guiding principles assist QA teams in making this crucial decision.
When it comes to selecting test cases for automation, several factors must be considered, including the frequency of execution, the effort required for automation, and the potential resource savings.
Teams typically evaluate potential test cases against the following criteria to determine their suitability for automation:
After identifying areas that can be automated, a QA specialist needs to determine what should be automated. It's important to consider that writing and maintaining automated tests require time and effort. If only 50% of the tests prove to be useful, it means that the remaining 50% of time spent on writing them has been wasted. Furthermore, waiting for all tests to finish running can introduce delays, and excessive automation can lead to longer build times or even become a logistical nightmare. Therefore, if automation is avoidable, manual testing may be a better option.
To strike the right balance, it is crucial to identify which features are vital for the viability of your software product. These features are good candidates for inclusion in a smoke or regression testing suite, which serves as the first and most suitable candidate for automation. However, if certain checks are faster and more cost-effective to perform manually, it is recommended to do so. On the other hand, if there are repetitive tasks that can benefit from automation, utilizing automated tests is a prudent choice. Finding the optimal balance between automation and manual testing based on the specific requirements and constraints of your project is key.
By scrutinizing past glitches, a QA team can enhance their comprehension of what should be subject to automation. It is logical to mechanize tasks where manual execution impacts the swiftness or precision of functionality. The identical applies to error-prone features, where flaws tend to emerge following each build iteration. The know-how gained from testing analogous products can also prove advantageous.
To identify the crucial business-critical functionality, it is important to engage in discussions with stakeholders. Developers, QA engineers, and stakeholders may have divergent perspectives regarding the priorities and essential features of the end product. Consequently, technology specialists can uncover unexpected insights and reassess areas suitable for automation.
To recap, excessive amounts of anything can be overwhelming, including automation. It's important to find the right balance. While automated testing has its advantages, it also has limitations. Here are some key takeaways:
Fully automating every aspect is not feasible and may not provide the expected returns on investment. It's essential to carefully consider the resources involved.
The Test Pyramid, although a popular concept, is not foolproof. It may not always work seamlessly in practice.
A competent QA team should identify areas that can be effectively automated and make informed decisions based on their expertise.
When selecting automation targets, you can either focus on analyzing past issues and error-prone functionalities or prioritize features that are crucial to stakeholders.
WeTest Automation can be a viable option if you lack expertise in test automation. With WeTest Automation, you can guarantee the highest quality for your software products and improve your development process's speed and efficiency. Welcome to try WeTest Automation.