4 Hurdles to Clear for Test Automation
The fear of implementing test automation prevents many top notch QA teams from implementing an automation practice to improve test coverage. Here are 4 checks to have confidence in your plan to implement test automation.
1. Finding the Right Test Automation Framework
There are lots of tools out there, all claiming to have test automation abilities. That doesn’t exactly mean they will fit your specific needs, or crush your specific challenges. There are some qualifications that any automation tool must meet in order to enhance your QA success:
- It must be as easy as possible to create an automated test script.
- It needs to make identification of the elements of the app as precise and robust as possible.
- It needs to enforce continuous refactoring and updating so that tests are always correct.
- It should easily connect to the cloud for multi browser and device testing.
2. Integration into Existing DevOps or Testing Environments
Leverage your automated test scripts by allowing others to run them in other environments for other purposes, like: new environment smoke-test, build validation, provide load during performance measurement, regression test after refresh or upgrade, etc.
3. Optimize Test Automation Strategy with Cross Platform Testing
To meet the needs of a rapidly expanding client products you must cover an ever expanding test matrix of operating systems, devices, and browsers. A graet automation tool can test on all significant platforms, giving you the ability to conquer the entire test area with just one automation script.
4. Low Skill Entry Level to Master
Finally new advances in programming make it accessible to those that have been too intimidated by the subject. This lower skill thresh-hold enables every project to add and maintain automated tests within the team. This reduces the bottle-neck and delays of relying on a scarce and skilled resource so that the project can move at its own pace without external intervention.
Thanks to David Fink whom forwarded a very similar article to me. I disagreed with some of the points made in the original article and decided to rewrite with my corrections. For one the original advocated Record and Playback instead of coding, it failed to mention maintenance, and refactoring for better reuse.