Monday, June 24, 2019
Home > Tech > To Automate or otherwise to Automate

To Automate or otherwise to Automate

The reason for still keeping manual testing? Has the expertise of an automation failing been so costly? Or are you currently staying away from it because you won’t want to feel the former? The reason why for staying away from are lots of. I additionally agree they’re legitimate ones. A few of the major ones include:

Complexity

Traditional a.k.a script based test automation are complex. All because of the have to ‘code’! Whether it’s RFT, QTP, Selenium or other test automation tool a tester must become familiar with a scripting language specific towards the automation tool, apply development practices to produce a script of the by hand tested test situation. Let’s say you can still automate without getting your testing teams code scripts?

Test automation is costly

From purchasing automation tools to right sources who be aware of native language from the tool to really make it work – traditional test automation requires countless number of investment. Tool license to user ratio is 1:1 which means even though you add yet another test automation expert for your team, you need to buy an additional license. Let’s say you can share test automation tool licenses in your team?

Skill intensive

Yes, script based test automation requires programmers. Frequently greater than expected, good programmers come in a cost. This boosts the cost to automate. Be sure to range from the costs of hiring and retaining these sources. Scripting also isolates the entire testing exercise in the other team people ( manual testers and subject material experts). This isn’t intentional but an unwanted effect of test automation. Let’s say all amounts of experience, domain and technical understanding collaborate in test situation creation?

Time-consuming

Traditional test automation means scripting. To create scripts, test, making them work requires lots of time. And time means more cost, literally. Let’s say you can shorten this time around but still ensure automation?

Although the aforementioned reasons are really the, maybe you have thought what you’re passing up on? Maybe you have considered:

Incomplete test coverage

Pressure of your time-to-market pushes your testing team not to regress 100%.

Time-to-market

Even if you choose to by hand regress for 100% test coverage, imagine the length of time can you save should you automate regression? Imagine how quickly you are able to hit the industry? Think of the first mover advantage?

Human errors

Despite the fact that to err is human, testing world can’t make use of this as any excuses for an insect that will get observed through the client. Manual regression can become mundane which can lead to unknown bugs.

Costly

This not just encapsulates resource cost, tool cost, infrastructure cost but cost the of elevated time for you to market, the unknown bugs because of insufficient one hundred percent regression or simply sheer monotony. All of these are costs and possibilities you cannot condone.

Manual tests are essential. Test automation cannot replace manual testing. If tests are way to build top quality software, then test automation is a way to mean. You’d agree, it is among the effective ways of build optimum software testing process. However the dilemma continues…

One one hands lies to price of developing, maintaining and operating test automation. And however lies of the price of elevated time for you to market and also the unknown bugs because of insufficient one hundred percent manual regression. What can you select?

Let’s say I suggest to lower the price of automation but still offer all the advantages of test automation? Let’s say you can still automate without getting your testing teams code scripts? Let’s say you can share test automation tool licenses in your team? Let’s say all amounts of experience, domain and technical understanding collaborate in test situation creation? Let’s say you can shorten time to automate while increasing the exam coverage?