From last post so much happened, didn't even had time or energy to write about something. I don't even know is somebody reading this, but any way I want to keep writing, maybe some good idea will come up one day in this blog, and I will be able to use it.
So now, after so much time without writing or thinking anything related with testing, I'll try to jump in, for me not very much explored, waters. Automatic testing or test automation or any other name You would like to call it. I will not create any test here, or write about frameworks or tools for testing, just ideas and other crap I can think of automation.
Main task of test automation is same as in other areas where automation is used. Remove manual work and do work more efficient. And yes, this is achievable even in testing. But not always. And I will try to explain pros and cons of this, and it wouldn't be easy.
Thinking about automation, people image, that robots will take away their jobs, and they are right, manual work often can be replaced with automated machine which will work day and night, will not have breaks, wouldn't complain, and if something happens - will not inform other about problem. Last part can be even updated to inform personal about issues, but again exhausting testing is impossible (what again, you never mentioned that before. Well I'm not, but I'm using this in real life almost weekly). And even human errors can be made, because still robots don't create robots with already programed stuff without human interception, and even more automated tests (as much as I know right know) are written by humans only.
There are bunch of tools for test automation, companies are creating specific things for other companies for automation, companies by them self are creating things related to automation testing, and even random citizens creating things to automate testing for websites/software they created. But how often automation is needed in testing? Very often, but not always. There are ideologies that every test needs to be automated. But this is not true. Don't agree? Well, maybe You are write, but I think differently.
There are bunch of cases where automation will take to long, or will not be so efficient or accurate as human. Automatic test can't decide that gray text on white background is hard to read - text is there, no errors in text, so it is correct, but user cannot see a shitty message You are showing to him. So automatic test passed, but manual test not. Other example can be testing website and searching elements by ID's - automatic test can find element with correct ID, it can make actions and report result, but user cannot find this element, because it is overlapped with table or something else. I can think of bunch similar test that will give on some level correct results while they are incorrect in human perception.
But believe me - automatic tests are like a water to thirsty tester in a week of regressions with thousands of test cases, after months of repetitive work. Regressions period can be so boring and repetitive that at least part of test automated, even with bugs and required overview is better, then no automation.
I think that You shouldn't trust person who says that automation is everything, and same way - who says manual testing is life. There should be equilibrium, balance in life. Eating only cake is not healthy, but not eating cake - huge part of joy of eating can be missed.
Your friendly neighborhood Tester
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą