What are the most common test automation framework anti-patterns to avoid?

1 Hard-coded data

One of the most common anti-patterns is hard-coding data in your test scripts, such as URLs, credentials, inputs, or expected outputs. This makes your tests inflexible, difficult to update, and prone to errors. For example, if you hard-code a URL in your test script and the URL changes, you will have to update every instance of that URL in your code, which is tedious and error-prone. Instead, you should use external data sources, such as configuration files, databases, or APIs, to store and retrieve your data dynamically. This way, you can easily change your data without modifying your test scripts, and also reuse your data across different tests.

2 Flaky tests

Another common anti-pattern is having flaky tests, which are tests that sometimes pass and sometimes fail without any apparent reason. Flaky tests can be caused by various factors, such as network issues, timing issues, browser inconsistencies, or environmental changes. Flaky tests reduce the trustworthiness and value of your test automation framework, as they can mask real defects or generate false alarms. To avoid flaky tests, you should follow some best practices, such as using explicit waits, avoiding dependencies between tests, isolating test environments, and using retry mechanisms.

3 Overlapping tests

A third common anti-pattern is overlapping tests, which are tests that cover the same functionality or scenario multiple times. Overlapping tests can be a result of poor test design, lack of communication, or duplication of effort. Overlapping tests can make your test suite redundant, inefficient, and hard to maintain. For example, if you have two tests that check the same login functionality, you are wasting time and resources by running both tests, and you are also increasing the risk of inconsistencies or conflicts. To avoid overlapping tests, you should follow some principles, such as using a clear naming convention, defining a test scope, and reviewing your test coverage.

4 Hard-coded locators

A fourth common anti-pattern is hard-coding locators in your test scripts, such as IDs, classes, or XPaths. Locators are used to identify and interact with web elements on a page, such as buttons, links, or forms. Hard-coding locators can make your tests fragile, as they can break if the web elements change their attributes, positions, or structures. For example, if you hard-code an XPath that relies on the position of an element in the HTML tree, and the element moves to a different location, your test will fail. Instead, you should use abstracted locators, such as page objects, which are reusable and maintainable classes that store and manage your locators. This way, you can separate your test logic from your web elements, and also update your locators in one place if they change.

5 Monolithic tests

A fifth common anti-pattern is monolithic tests, which are tests that are too long, complex, or comprehensive. Monolithic tests can be a result of trying to test everything in one test, or not breaking down your test scenarios into smaller and simpler steps. Monolithic tests can make your tests slow, unreadable, and hard to debug. For example, if you have a test that performs multiple actions and checks multiple outcomes, you will have to wait for the whole test to finish before you can see the results, and you will also have a hard time finding the root cause of any failures. Instead, you should use modular tests, which are tests that are short, focused, and independent. Modular tests can help you improve your test performance, readability, and debugging.

6 Manual intervention

A sixth common anti-pattern is manual intervention, which is the need for human input or action during the execution of your automated tests. Manual intervention can be a result of not automating some steps, such as launching the browser, entering the credentials, or verifying the results. Manual intervention can defeat the purpose of test automation, as it can introduce human errors, delays, or inconsistencies. For example, if you have to manually enter the credentials for each test, you are wasting time and effort, and you are also risking entering the wrong credentials or forgetting to enter them. Instead, you should use automated intervention, which is the use of tools, scripts, or frameworks to perform the steps that would otherwise require manual intervention. Automated intervention can help you increase your test efficiency, reliability, and consistency.

7 Here’s what else to consider

This is a space to share examples, stories, or insights that don’t fit into any of the previous sections. What else would you like to add?