A QA-guy blog

Choosing between writing one UI tests and 100 Unit test I would always prefer the second option. Why? Well, I am actually lame with UI testing, but that not the main reason. The only thing I worry about is speed. How fast we can change software? Quality - I don't care about it much cause quality standards are contextual and can change. The only thing that is certain - there're going to be changes and we most likely don't know what those changes are about. So there's only one thing that matters - how fast we can adapt to this change. Internal quality is something that actually makes us able to change fast. UI tests do not contribute to internal quality. UI tests may even make things worse. That is the reason. And I invite you to Testcon Moscow to talk about this more - I am going to present some more thoughts on this topic there.

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

"Modern software is of a lower quality that it was in a past". Maybe. Perceived quality of software may have decreased, but I don't think that "more testing" is a proper solution. More testing does not mean more quality More testing may find more issues, but not necessarily. Simply spending more time on the activity does not mean results would be better. And somebody needs to fix bugs, test bug fixes. So we can't tell that more testing means more quality but certainly means bigger costs. Software quality != No bugs Bugs matter, but that's hardly the only factor to measure quality level. There are a whole bunch of other things that matter: UX, number of features, documentation, price, delivery model, cute logos... Spending more time on testing may mean spending less time on these things. Adequate quality level So it is obvious that one can't spend 100 years testing every possible case. I think that each product has some Adequate le

So we sit in the room and discuss the transformation plan for a company which was working in a waterfall manner for nearly a decade. The final goal is to switch to iterative development with somewhat small iteration (let's say, 3 weeks). The "only" problem we had is that we have 3 weeks if manual regression, and it does not really fit the plan. We have options: Long waterfall-like sprint, where the first half of the sprint we develop features, second half - test them Series of short sprints and one "hardening"/"release" sprint dedicated to regression when we finally decide to release things.  There's a third obvious option, which is to decrease regression time, but no-one seems to have knowledge about how it can be done in the next 5 years. So this gets dropped. "We need to have potentially shippable increment each sprint, "hardening" sprints are not Agile!" - says one man in a room. Well, that may be true. Maybe

I have published several posts with the aim to deliver one message - sometimes it is more efficient (fast and convenient) to change the application under test (make it more testable or eliminate the need for testing at all) then invent or employ complicated test automation techniques to check the same functionality. Even though there was a lot of misunderstanding caused by badly forming those posts, I still think I stroke something deeper. For instance, this twitter post made me think that we speak two different languages: That's like asking a pharma company to self-certify that their drugs are safe without any independent approval! #softwaretesting #CIO — Ayush Trivedi (@ayushtrivedi) 4 September 2017 Now it started to seem to me that there're two different views on what test automation is. First, probably prevailing point of view is that test automation is a part of ages-old traditional QA process, where test automation specialist is just a test specialist usin

Preface: I am in the middle of writing a series of posts about test automation frameworks architecture. I am still going to continue that series, even though this posts kind of devaluate the whole test automation framework concept a bit. Sorry for that, just can't stop ranting. Looking through the internet I spotted a couple of posts where some test automation specialists were talking about "page object" "pattern"/"model", as it was something special they had invented. Well, I also have something to say about "page object". “Java test automation engineers were told that there are different patterns than a PageObject” ( http://classicprogrammerpaintings.com/post/153817288474/java-test-automation-engineers-were-told-that ) "Page object" may be described as a pattern that allows us to decouple things you can do with the web page (external interface describing test/business logic) from the real implementation code you will h

Probably the most popular architecture pattern used for test automation frameworks (TAF) is layered architecture. This pattern is so well known that on job interviews for some companies when they ask you about TAF architecture you are supposed to describe this one. If you don't - they think you know nothing about the architecture altogether. I suggest you first read a brilliant description of the pattern at the O'Reilly web page , cause in this post I am going to describe the pattern in a way it is usually applied to build test automation solution. Usually, there're three distinct layers, which may have different names, but follow the same logic mostly. Sometimes those layers called test layer , business-layer and core layer , but there're no standard names really. Key rules for layered architecture are the dependency direction (each level depending on the level below) and call direction (no level can call/reference code described in the level above). The rough