Manual and automated testing confusion

-
I am getting tired of posts about how "automated testing" going to replace "manual testing".

Let me offer you a simple analogy. I have a car that has lots of useful self-check lights, like "check engine", "low gas", "low battery", etc. Automated tests are similar to those lights - if a light is on, most likely something is wrong and I need a mechanic to look at my car. Does having those self-check lights let me not to visit a mechanic for human-driven check yearly? They don't. Fact that self-check light is not on does not mean my car is OK, does it?

Areas covered lots with self-check may require less time to check (as risk they would be broken is lower). However, there are lots of areas that is not feasible to cover with self-checks. There're some car parts I am not even aware of, while mechanic knows they weak points and can find an issue in a couple of minutes.

It is possible to have only automated checks and not have mechanics to look at your car, but it does not mean that automated-check replaced mechanics, it means that we accept the risk.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Test automation framework - do I need it at all?

-
Image
While there're lots of information published on the internet about how one should develop/buy a Test Automation solution, there's an elephant in the room - which is the fundamental question "Do I need to do it at all?". That is a good question. While I think that there’re some legitimate contexts where product/project/team can benefit from having a sophisticated test automation solution/framework, my general rule of thumb is “If you need a framework - you do it wrong” . There’re at least several decent papers showing the benefit of unit-testing ([1],[2], [3]), while I could not find any research proving that system level tests could bring better results. Please let me know if you can prove me wrong. There’s at least one half-scientific paper showing the benefits of unit tests in comparison to integration/system level tests [4] There’s a good paper bringing a notion of running/writing and maintaining test vs. the benefit of having/running it at...
Read more

Efficient test automation - Secret #1 | Test Club

-
Image
It seems everyone talks about efficient test automation, but not so many people have actually seen it! To cover this I decided to make several videos regarding the secrets of efficient test automation. Today we will talk about the first (and, arguably, the main) secret - realistic expectations. Very often, test automation projects or initiatives are started with the following unrealistic expectations: "Test automation will replace 'manual' testing" "Test automation will provide fast results and benefits" "Test automation efficiency depends solely on test automation engineers" Unfortunately, all those expectations are not realistic! Watch the video to know more!
Read more

An alternative to ubiquitous UI-level checking - Subcutaneous tests

-
Image
Let's assume a hypothetical situation - you were assigned to a project to help with the "test automation" initiative. You have a huge "test plan" as an input, containing hundreds (if not thousands) of "test cases" and you need to do something about it, quick. Problem statement Your first urge (if it is a Web application) may be to write some UI-level automated checks using tools like, you know, Selenium. In fact, there's a huge demand for such "Selenium test automators" in the industry these days. But please, please, don't do this. There're lots of things which make UI-level automated checking the least desirable approach: UI-level automated checks will be slow. There's just no way to avoid it. You can parallel them or do some other tweaks to speed them up somehow, but they still will be slow. UI-level automated checks will be flaky. Partly - because they're slow. Partly because Web browser and UI interface w...
Read more