A QA-guy blog

Test automation at the Web UI level (you know, Selenium stuff) is usually brittle and painful. It is usually also the only test-automation approach people are aware of/interested in (for whatever reasons). Below are several suggestions on how one can make her/his UI test automation at the Web UI level less painful and flaky. 1. Retry failed steps Each test consists of several steps. Unfortunately, those steps from time to time tend to fail with no apparent reason. Retrying a failed test step may save your whole test from failing. Helps with: Unresponsive, slow UI Elements being shown with a delay Wrong moon phase [1] Drawbacks: Sometimes it is just a waste of time, especially when the real issue is being "retried" Even worse: sometimes it may hide real issue that would go away after some time or page refresh 2. Retry failed tests From time to time - odds are just against you with a specific test run. Everyone, whoever had the misery of working with Web UI...

Some time ago I had an argument with another team member - he was claiming that Test-driven development (TDD) was not applicable to our application. He thought it would be more efficient to rely on manual or E2E testing instead. I disagreed. Without going too much into the details, the core of the application we were working on was a graph-traversing algorithm with some amount of mathematical calculations. It was painful to test on a system level as the number of possibilities was huge and it was not easy to put the system into a particular state to check specific conditions. I thought that thorough unit-test coverage, and, ideally, TDD would be more efficient, but was not able to persuade my colleague. At the end of the day, I started to doubt if I was right. Challenge was accepted, so I tried to do something more or less similar (though simplified) - implementing a Tic Tac Toe computer player logic via as pure TDD as possible. Long story short, after some time I managed to g...

As we've learned in previous posts of the series - Layered (also known as Tiered) architecture is a de-facto standard of the industry. There're two major variations of this architectural pattern that one should be aware of: 3-layered architecture (described here ) and 2-layered architecture . This post is going to concentrate on 2-layered architecture . 2-layered architecture is typically seen in UI-specific test automation frameworks. The key feature of this pattern is the absence of Business-layer, so most of the business-related logic are actually to be put into Page Objects. In order to avoid " The God class " anti-pattern and still be able to contain business-related logic in Page Object, one usually uses libraries or frameworks that allow simplifying DOM-elements location, thus letting Page Objects to concentrate less on locating elements and more on business-logic itself. The good thing in this architectural pattern is that it actually allows you...

Yet another time I think I see people using word Agile wrong. Yet another guy claimed "we need to have more predictability and stability so I think we would go for Agile methodologies, Scrum in particular". Nonsense. I don't think that "predictability, stability, whatevershitability" has anything to do with Agile. If you start Agile transformation with such a goal you've already failed. Agile is about maximizing value delivery rate in a state of uncertainty, that's pretty much what it is. If your business is uncertain as hell why do you think that "predictability" with engineering teams is going to fix things? It is not. Worse, if you make engineering teams predictable while having unpredictable environment, you will miss the whole point and make things worse while still thinking you're doing fine. Nonsense. An agile team is about removing management layers between engineering and customer, not making management happier. ...

Let's consider an example of what Layered (Tiered) architecture may look like for a test automation framework. As a system under test, we're going to use this simple and neat "Todo list" application. First, let's do a brief analysis of the application. From my brief exploration I came up with the following checklist: Area/Group Things to check Comments Todos CRUD 1 Create item Basic scenario, UI-level case 1.1 Create an item with the same name The case is not valid. There's no validation for that - nothing to check really. 1.2 Create an item with an empty/not valid/malicious name While it would be a nice thing to test manually, from test automation standpoint I would expect this to be filtered on service or repository level, so either integration or unit test . 2 Mark item complete Basic scenario, UI-level case 2.1 Un-mark item complete Basic scenario, UI-level case 3 Delete item Basic scenario, UI-level case 3.1 Delete item ...

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 ...