When people go for Automation
·If it becomes tedious and time-consuming to manually input data and trigger actions in the s/w build, we go for Automation testing
·For products we go for automation
·Regression Testing Cycles are long and iterative.
·If the application is planned to have multiple releases / builds
·If it’s a long running application where in small enhancements / Bug Fixes keeps happening
·Regression Testing Cycles are long and iterative.
·If the application is planned to have multiple releases / builds
·If it’s a long running application where in small enhancements / Bug Fixes keeps happening
·Even if you were able to construct quality code over an iterative cycle of two weeks, the software can take two weeks or longer before it's certified by a testing team as ready for production. Doing two weeks' worth of development followed by two weeks' of testing might sound acceptable. But, it would only be effective if you knew the testers weren't going to encounter any problems in their two weeks of testing. The problem is that the development team has moved on to the next iteration's coding work. If problems crop up, you have less-than-ideal choices. You can interrupt the current iteration, which is what usually happens. This disrupts the development team, detracting from their ability to complete work on the new set of features. It also kills your ability to use the iteration as a data point. Or, you can schedule any required fixes into a subsequent iteration, further delaying release of the new feature. A feature slated for delivery in four weeks now won't be ready for at least eight more weeks (2 initial development weeks + 2 testing weeks + 2 weeks of rework + 2 weeks of final testing). The result of all this, in either case, is that a development team delivers incomplete software to the testing team. But, there is a better way which is automation.
Why people go for Automation
· If the automated script could be reused. Like for example, if we are developing a product, it makes sense to create test packs for the functionality as it will help everyone in future. Any change to the functionality - would require the test packs rebuilt/modified though.
· To avoid doing the same thing over and over again with different sets of data
· To maintain test re-usability
· To maintain test re-usability
Will Automation replaces the manual testers
Computer programs (Automation scripts) can never think and intereact like a human brain! So no queston of “tools” replacing “manual testing”! Automation tools are meant to help the craft of testing; not to replace it! Moreover, it’s the tester who has to design the automated scripts and analyze the test reports generated by the tool!
