"Test automation is slightly more elegant but to b...

2009-11-07T13:17:28.369Z

"Test automation is slightly more elegant but to be honest it isn't as elegant as it should be!"

OK, isn't it too subjective?

Let me follow up with an example you mentioned as well. A dev changes the layout resulting in a number of tests you need to manually update, even one by one inspecting the new layout. Yes, I've had a lot of experience like that .. when I was using Selenium for instance. ;)

Imagine the following. When the above happens a lot of tests fail. Next, you "open" just one failure seeing something like:
"Cannot find element with path [some_path] and ID [some_ID]." followed by a red 'X'. You also see a next line/dialog suggesting another path/ID/both instead followed by a green 'V'. There is a button having content "Update". You will press it, won't you? As soon as you do that you get another dialog listing all the steps in this test using the same element you've just updated as well as all the other tests in the project that you can automatically update. You can select everything to update resulting in all the tests "fixed" in seconds.

Isn't that elegant? Would you like me to show you a real example instead of typing down a dream? ;)

Thanks,
-Konstantin

A very simple example of elegance in a manual test...

2009-11-02T21:10:14.767Z

A very simple example of elegance in a manual test would be to add, update and then delete a record because you can do this all with one record. I once saw this test written with the delete first. But you still had to add a record to delete it! Duh?

I think I'd approach your example a bit pragmatically. Most modern databases will only let you enter data that conforms to the datatype of the field in question, so there is really no point in trying to type alpha characters into a datetime field. I'd probably still test date validation though, things like Feb 29th etc. If there were 6 fields I'd have a test for each one on its own and a test where data was entered in all the fields. The rest would depend entirely on what the fields are. I have seen tests where every single value of a listbox is tested separately, but frankly, if you can select one item from the list you can select them all.

One thing I'm conscious of making my tests inelegant is the testware I have to use. I wrote far more elegant tests in a 3 column Word table than I can in the rather flaky test editing software we have at work.

I've probably gone into far too much detail. I've always found it easier to write tests than to be articulate about what I do. Perhaps I should write more.

Comments on The Automated Tester: Testing Should Be Elegant

"Test automation is slightly more elegant but to b...

A very simple example of elegance in a manual test...