Test automation has gained a significant position in the software testing industry in the last decade. With an increase in agile software development and DevOps principles, enterprises are adopting test automation for various reasons.
However, every coin has two sides. Despite numerous benefits of Test Automation, not many software testers simply love test automation. Because, of course, there are some pain points. Why should you choose a particular testing model? When will I get the returns? Can manual testers do the job of automation testers?
Matellio’s experts are here to put all your queries to rest. Let’s get going with answers to some of the frequently asked questions.
Is it possible to set and achieve realistic goals with Testing Automation?
Realistic goals? Well, what’s that? Trust us, that is what every tester will ever say when it comes to test automation. Setting up realistic goals and achieving them with test automation can be truly challenging at times. Imagine setting up a perfect environment that runs all the test cases flawlessly. Superb, isn’t it? But but but… what if manual team prepared another set of additional test cases? This is precisely where it fails. Automated systems would not know what to do.
However, it is not that difficult to set and achieve realistic goals with test automation. All you need is a team lead by experienced automation architects and automation testers, and you are all sorted. Easy, right?
Is Testing Automation Better than Manual Testing?
Well, a quote is worth mentioning here:
“It’s automation, not automagic.”
The reason is, test automation is only a step next to manual tests. It is not possible to identify the complete set of automation protocols without testing a product manually.
Test automation is not an alternative to manual testing. It instead helps you achieve quicker results with least manual efforts. In other words, manual testing is followed by test automation to support the testers verify facts. Once the system is thoroughly understood, testers can enforce the understanding in the form of checks. By running these automated checks, we confirm the understanding.
Assume checking a calculator application. While a machine will only check it for the given set of test cases like “1+1”, “1-1”, “1*1, “1/1”, etc., a human would also like to verify the combinations like 1/1-1+1/1-1.
Consider another example, where the client offers you to test a particular build for stability. When you run it through the automated test, the system claims it to be unstable. However, while conducting a manual check, you identify that the system is flawless and instead failed due to the automated system’s environment failure. That accurately defines why manual testing should be preferred over test automation, wherever possible.
On the other hand, consider the scenario where the same set of tests have to be executed each time, and there were no changes made to the application. It might be possible that a tester might skip specific functionality assuming it was working last time due to monotony. However, a machine will re-run the entire code regardless of the repetitions.
Is Achieving 100% Test Automation Possible?
Testing does not deal with a single possibility, and hence, endless combinations make it difficult for the testing team to achieve 100% testing. Having said that, difficult does not imply impossible.
100% test automation is definitely possible, given that the testing team consists of purely automation testers along with skilled automation architects, the test cases are well-defined and reviewed by the product team. Besides, the test automation environment must have clearly defined results.
In any case, the failure of a single condition might affect the success of the entire system.
Does Test Automation Yield Quick RoI?
The RoI derived from Test Automation entire depends upon the efficiency of the resources. Test automation can replace an entire team of multiple testers with that of a single person, thus decreasing the investments.
But that’s not it.
Imagine a system that requires you to obtain favorable results for 1000 test cases. Once approved by the manual team, the facts are fed into the automated system. While the development progresses further, the system upgrades require the manual team to test another 500 cases. However, these cases will not be added to the test automation system unless there is a synergy between both the teams. Thus, test automation may approve the application even if it passes 1000 tests, not only consuming time but also increasing the chances of re-work. This, in turn, delays the cycle and hence increases the investments.
Therefore, it is possible to achieve quicker RoI with test automation, given that the teams work in proper synergy.
Test Automation has Higher Defect Detection Rate
Undoubtedly yes. Test automation definitely delivers great defect detection, primarily in case of regression testing. It is generally applied for stable projects to ensure that every functionality offers seamless execution. After the addition of a new feature, test automation helps validate the existing build and ensure that no functionality is broken.
Do Only Specific Areas of a System Require Test Automation?
There is no rule to determine what areas of your system are fit for test automation and which ones are not. However, the best solution to the dilemma is testing the regions which are highly prone to bugs, the ones which affect the users more, and the ones that attract maximum users.
For example, an eCommerce marketplace will be more affected by the bugs in products and payments page. On the other hand, hardly any users will visit the About Us section. Thus, efforts to minimize bugs on products/ payments page should be maximum.
Can we Use Existing Use Cases for Test Automation?
A big NO, especially if you want your product to be delivered in lesser time, and with minimal investments. For anyone, defining a new set of test cases is obviously less time consuming than understanding the existing ones and working upon them.
How does My Participation, as a Client, Matter for the Success of Test Automation?
There are multiple ways through which a client can affect the success rate of system testing. It requires for the product team to ensure a thorough check of the test cases to ensure that the product comes out flawless. Sometimes, the lack of a client’s interest in the test case verification might cause the entire testing team to coordinate with the development team instead. This only worsens the condition as the test team sees an application as a black box, while the development team sees it as a white box. Hence why test cases should be verified by the client to ensure that they deliver an experience that they wish to.
Moreover, the businesses should be able to understand that a framework that works for one project may fail for another.
Can Manual and Automation Testers Work Interchangeably?
Manual testers and automation testers require a different set of skills. Tester expert at manual testing may not deliver as efficient results as compared to the one who has honed expertise in the automation testing. Not only does it increase the learning loop, but also has maximum chances of failure and delays. This is because the manual tester’s implementation will be based on simple learning and not the experience.
What Role Does Planning Play in Effective Implementation of Test Automation?
Testers would agree that they are generally asked, “You have so much of experience, why do you need time to plan?”. Well, the answer is simple, to ensure results without compromising with the quality. Planning is vital to ensure that you do not miss out on any crucial aspect of the application. Moreover, it might be possible that the entire framework has to be redefined.
Is Test Automation One-Time Process?
No, it is not. Be it manual testing, or automated one; it is a repeated process that varies from one product to another. Moreover, with test automation, you need to ensure that scripts are updated timely and monitored.
Test automation is a significant step in itself to ensure great results, given that certain conditions are met. Failure of these conditions might do more hard than good. However, with a skilled team and practical methodology of implementation, it can significantly improve product quality. Of course, in combination with manual testing.