Manual vs Automated Testing
We’ve mentioned in some of the previous blog posts that manual and automated testing shouldn’t be treated as opposites. One doesn’t replace the other – they always go hand-in-hand. While automation guarantees faster execution and accurate results, there are some areas where human input is crucial. The right decision is to determine the balance of manual and automated activities that will work for a product. A team should be aware of two common mistakes when searching for this balance.
The Ambition to Automate Everything
A desire to automate as much as possible won’t do any good. Automating everything is not reasonable. As we’ve mentioned before, it is not efficient. Automation isn’t going to make the work easier by default. It takes time to create an AT suit. Moreover, it requires maintenance in the future. If the effort doesn’t justify the potential benefits, it is wiser to go with manual testing.
The Iconic Test Pyramid
The Software Testing Pyramid is a well-known principle that helps to choose the right cases for automation. According to it, unit tests have the highest ROI as they help to prevent serious mistakes on the higher levels. Then come automated component, integration, and API tests. GUI tests are at the top of the pyramid as highly impractical – complicated to maintain, with many false-negative results, etc.
The Software Testing Pyramid is the alternative to the Ice-Cream Cone principle. It is another common practice with the opposite approach. Only a small share of unit tests are automated, while GUI tests are automated generously.
Unfortunately, neither of these models works perfectly. Of course, they are perfectly applicable in some cases but certainly aren’t universal. In practice, you’ll need to estimate the scope of automated tests against the functionality and see whether AT helps you achieve the set business goals. A reference to a geometric figure or some other shape is the least relevant variable in this formula.
Achieving the Optimal Level of Automation
When it comes to automation, it seems that there are more questions than answers. And the next one is how to achieve the optimal level of automation? There are a few tips that help QA teams to decide this.
Cases, When Automation Is Reasonable
To choose test cases for automation, it is necessary to consider how frequently you will run them, how much effort the automation process will take, and what resources it will save.
When a team selects test cases for automation, they check if the potential options match the following criteria:
- Belong to the stable functionality that won’t undergo changes.
- Have clear pass/fail criteria and results.
- Are time-consuming if performed manually.
- Involve large data sets or complicated input parameters.
- Require testing in multiple systems and their combinations.
- Don’t require human input or creativity.
- Will be repeated for an extended time in the future.
- The cost of automation makes sense.
As a rule, tests that are reasonable to automate meet at least several of the abovementioned requirements.
Things That Can and Things That Should Be Automated
After a QA specialist defines the areas that can be automated, they need to decide what should be automated. Writing and maintenance of automated tests take time. If you end up with 50% of tests being useful, it means you have wasted the rest 50% of the time on writing the rest. After that, you will need to wait until those tests finish to run. At the very best, automating too much will make the builds longer. If worst comes to worst, the automation efforts will turn into a logistical nightmare. So if automation is evitable, it is a good reason to go on with manual testing.
To find the balance, decide what features are significant for the viability of your software product. They probably are going to make a smoke or a regression testing suite, which is the first and most suitable candidate for automation. If the checks are faster and cheaper to run manually, do it manually. If there is a scope of repetitive tasks, use autotests.
Careful Analysis of Previous Bugs
A QA team can get a better understanding of what to automate by analyzing their previous interactions with a product. It makes sense to automate tasks where manual execution affects the speed or accuracy of performance. The same goes for the bug-prone functionality, where defects tend to pop up after every build. The experience of testing similar products can also come in handy.
Go Beyond Tech Knowledge
Another way to determine the core business-critical functionality is to discuss it with stakeholders. Developers, QA engineers, and stakeholders can have different priorities when it comes to an end-product, considering completely different features as the most important. Therefore, tech specialists can find out something unexpected and reconsider the areas for automation.
To Sum Up
Too much of anything is too much. If you decide to go for automation, don’t overdo it. As you’ve just learned, there is a limit to the benefits automated testing can bring. Here are some things to keep in mind:
- The idea to automate everything is not viable. The resources spent on it overweigh the potential benefits.
- The Test Pyramid may seem like a perfect formula, but it doesn’t always work in practice.
- A QA team needs to determine what areas can be automated and then decide what should be.
- There are two approaches to choosing the target for automation – analyzing your past bugs and target defect-prone functionality or covering the features stakeholders consider business-critical.
If you don’t have much experience with test automation, consider QA outsourcing. It may be more efficient than hiring an in-house Test Automation Engineer. Specialists from a software testing company will study your product and prepare a strategy that will work best, becoming a full-fledged extension of your team.
Ready to discuss automated testing for your product?
Contact us
