The automation paradox of graphical interface tests

 The automation paradox of graphical interface tests

Most teams test a feature before freeing it. The reason for automating graphical interface tests is that there is a regression problem. A single functionality change could break something else in the software, some unpredictable part. The unpredictability means that the teams must try everything before liberation, which is expensive and expensive. Hope with the automation of graphical interface tests may be to find these bugs faster, allowing quick release. This is something quality Legend W. Edwards Deming called "mass inspection". Its goal for the automotive industry in the 1960s and 70 was to change the work process to eliminate mass inspection. While US companies did not know it largely, Deming's success is part of what allowed the Japanese automotive revolution.

Also Read: AutomationTesting Company in USA

Software teams pursuing automation due to a quality problem seek to have a mass inspection - and many of that - all the time. This translates into a strange process, where the team first injects defects, then uses tests to find them and delete them as quickly as possible. After all, someone else does this work. Having a magical mythical tool to find problems can add to this problem.

Also Read: AutomationTesting Company in USA

Unless the fault injection rate decreases, the test tools can best find the majority of previous problems. There will be reworking and try again. Companies that seek automation of graphical interface tests without examining the strict of their software engineering practices will find mixed results for their efforts. Combined with other classic errors below, this problem can paralyze a test automation project.

Error: Eating the whole elephant

When Deming spoke of mass inspection, he meant every part of an automobile. With software, there is usually an infinite combination of entrances, states, and timing. Add interaction between the components and an incredible range of open possibilities. Dr. CEM KANER, leader to test computer software and professor of Florida Tech software engineering, calls for this impossibility to test completely. In its Black Box software test course, Dr. Kaner suggests that a major challenge of testing is to select the few most powerful tests to execute.

Also Read: AutomationTesting Company in USA

The teams that continue automation should have a coverage concept, as well as rules to understand how automated tests will be. Another problem is trying to modernize all tests at the same time, from the beginning, as a project. These projects are not only expensive but as the software changes under test writers, the new tests add inertia capable of slowing down the delivery instead of speeding up.

Also Read: AutomationTesting Company in USA

With regard to coverage, three common approaches must test all features in an exhaustive way, to create "epics" that are complete user work, or to create small extracts that are easy to debug that test the basic functionality. In our experience, the first two approaches are subject to failure. The first, testing all the scenarios, will simply be too much time and intensive resources. As the user interface changes, the tests will need maintenance, creating additional work. 

Also Read: AutomationTesting Company in USA

The second approach, to create "epic", will explore the user's trip. These are usually complete end-to-end scenarios, connecting to search, add to the basket and the box, while a test. These tests do many things, just like real users and can do complex things ... and they will be fragile. The debugging and tracing of the problem will be more difficult since more configuration may be necessary, which makes it possible to re-examine the defects that need to be resolved. Also, more time passes, new flaws appear, which will require debugging, fixing and reaction tests in an endless cycle.

Also Read: AutomationTesting Company in USA

Benefits of Automation Testing

 Benefits of Automation Testing

Now, that we are finished with the introduction, it is time to see the main benefits of automation testing to help you eradicate ambiguity on whether automation testing is the right choice for your organization. Let's begin!

1. Schedule your test execution 24/7

One of the main benefits of testing automation over the manual is the flexibility to execute testing at any time, from anywhere in the world. To do manual testing, you must work through a computer to test the web application. You can't bring your computer, laptop, everywhere. Also, if someone asks you to take a round of testing at 3:00 a.m. after a day of work. I'm sure you won't find your mood very pleasant because of that thought. Moreover, your comfort.

This is why automation testing is better than manual testing, as in such a scenario you can schedule your test execution to run at any time, from anywhere from any location, and analyze the test results with the report generated based on the test suite you execute.

2. Easy regression testing

Manual testing takes time for each improvement used in production, testers must repeat a similar set of test cases during the same period to ensure that the bug has been deleted. Regression testing has become a pain point for every developer. Doing the same test over and over again, not only requires more time but also decreases the overall efficiency of the tester.

Conduct regression testing manually consuming a lot of time and leads to the following problems:

→ Running all regression creating congestion in the release cycle makes it not flexible.

→ manual regression testing cannot be done thoroughly every time the software is updated due to time limit.

→ discomfort about whether the test is done in the same way every time.

This is why testing automation is the ideal way to do regression testing. As discussed in previous points, automation tests such as robots never sleep. Also, the time invested in building automatic test cases is a one-time effort, which brings us to our next main benefit of automation testing.

Asian-Trade-now

3. Reusability always makes you feel better!

Another major benefit of automation tests the reuse of your test script. Writing effective test cases requires a lot of time & business, and to write the same test case again can leave one who is tired mentally. This is why automation testing is better than manual testing. When you do automation testing, you write a one-time test script and start using it as much as you like.

Let's look at this point from the point of view of cross browser testing. When you do cross browser testing, you might need to write a test script or test the case every time to test the application on the operating system or device that is different. It sounds tiring, right?

However, the automatic test script can be reused; You don't always need a new script even if the OS version on the device will change. It is possible to repeat the same test again without forgetting any steps.

With automatic testing tools, test scripts can be reused as much as you need, ultimately save time and effort.

4. Strong test reports to help you analyze hundreds of test cases easily!

In terms of manual testing, testers must report to each other manually to find out how many test scripts are written and what all bugs have been fixed. The whole process is complicated and causes dependence on each other.

On the other hand, it is possible for the testing automation engineer to see what other engineers have done, what scripts have been written, what are all other testing tests and bugs found and corrected with the help of clear reports for testing automation.