The Dark Side of Full Test Automation
Taking Off the Automation Blinders
The False Promise of Full Automation
The promise of fully automated testing seems enticing. Executives and managers enamored with automation often aim for utopian “100% scripted testing.” However, comprehensive test automation has inherent pitfalls, many underestimated or overlooked entirely.
Automating requires a substantial initial investment. Crafting robust, maintainable scripts demands more upfront effort than one-off manual test plans. This time must be paid back through repeated executions over the software’s lifetime. However, modern rapid iterative development jeopardizes this payout. A comprehensive test suite finely tuned for Version 1.0 risks irrelevance after a major V2.0 rewrite. Frequent code changes inevitably require maintenance and updating of automated checks.
Additionally, each new automated scenario eventually provides diminishing returns while increasing maintenance costs. Hyperthically, researching defects over time reveals that 85% originate from the most common test cases, with the remaining 15% from countless edge cases. Exhaustively automating 100% of tests squanders substantial effort compared to selectively automating the vital 20%, providing 80% of value. The last 5% of coverage requires an exponentially growing testing effort.
Certain test types inherently resist automation. Exploratory testing leverages human insight to discover edge cases organically. Evaluating aesthetics and UX requires human judgment. These subjective assessments prove challenging to automate. Real-world dependencies like valid credit card numbers and phone numbers also hinder incorporating some test scenarios into automated suites. Despite mocking objects and virtualization, replicating such prerequisites remains difficult. No automation toolkit realistically covers every possible testing need out of the box.
Automation Pitfalls Across Application Types
Automation necessitates dedicated software engineering acumen. Architecting frameworks, detecting test flakiness, and managing test data — require technical specialization beyond basic QA skills. Attempting automation without proper coding talent results in technical debt and brittle tests over time. The most robust and maintainable pipelines demand seasoned software engineering expertise.
These pitfalls manifest across different application types:
Web testing must handle diverse browsers, devices, and resolutions. Comprehensive cross-platform coverage requires extensive configuration and maintenance.
Mobile testing expands this matrix with OS versions, native vs. hybrid apps, and countless device models.
API testing often involves orchestrating complex workflows around security, rate limiting, and generating representative datasets.
Desktop application testing presents challenges emulating intricate native interactions like drag-and-drop.
While automation benefits efficiency, consistency, and coverage, attempting to automate every conceivable test is rarely cost-effective. The last 20% of coverage consumes 80% of effort. And full automation is ultimately impossible — there will always be gaps only covered through manual testing.
Embracing Automation and Manual Testing Together
In their enthusiasm, many teams focus on building and executing scripts rather than the wider goal of delivering high-quality software. Comprehensive automation becomes an end in itself rather than a means towards effectiveness and efficiency. Without prudent human guidance, misapplied automation often leads to waste and erosion of testing value.
Automation is a powerful tool, not a wholesale replacement for manual testing and human insight. Skilled testers provide key values difficult or impossible to achieve through automation:
Discovery — Humans notice subtle issues missed by scripts. Exploratory testing uncovers edge cases automation can’t identify.
Insight — Seasoned testers understand what and why to test, recognizing high-risk areas. Machines lack this intuitive domain experience.
Adaptability — Testers quickly adjust to changing conditions unanticipated by scripts. Automated tests break when application behavior shifts.
Qualitative Assessment — Humans can evaluate subjective elements like look, feel, and usability unattainable through automation.
The most effective quality assurance programs feature automation and manual testing, working in tandem. Intelligently-applied automation amplifies human testers’ abilities and covers low-value repetition, freeing them to focus expertise on high-value manual testing.
Rather than chasing perfect 100% scripted testing, teams should thoughtfully balance automated and manual checking where each approach brings the greatest ROI. Automation should selectively apply to what humans cannot easily do, not be used to eliminate their contributions blindly. With this balanced approach, organizations can optimize efficiency, agility, and quality by leveraging the strengths of both humans and machines.
Attempting to eliminate manual testing through full automation can undermine the human insights, skills, and discoveries that bring the most value. The allure of complete test automation is understandable but often fanciful. It’s not necessarily a lack of skill preventing full automation, as nearly any manual test can be automated given sufficient time and resources. However, few companies can cost-justify the exponential effort required to achieve 100% automation. The goal should not be automating every possible test but selecting where it provides positive ROI over manual testing. Leaders can strike the right balance with prudent discernment guiding automation investments based on maximizing business value rather than blindly pursuing full automation. This selective approach allows them to improve capabilities while avoiding the pitfalls and wasted effort of automation running amok.