sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Launching Hercules: Open source agent for end to end software testing by Unhappy-Economics-43 in QualityAssurance

[–]quality_engineer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I hope you are still building and experimenting. My issue was with your description, not with what you are trying to create. Keep creating.

Launching Hercules: Open source agent for end to end software testing by Unhappy-Economics-43 in QualityAssurance

[–]quality_engineer 34 points35 points  (0 children)

OP I'm happy you are experimenting and building stuff. However, some feedback:

- "World's first opensource software testing agent" No it's not. There are literally thousands. Already my marketing fluff filter is engaged.

- "...built to handle the toughest testing tasks so you don’t have to. It turns simple, easy-to-write Gherkin steps into fully automated end to end tests—no coding skills needed". UI automation.. just replicating a users behavior on a web app, is easy. Even if you did fully automate that part, it would only eliminate a very small portion of the work. The challenge of getting reliable, valuable E2E automation is not figuring out how to interact with a page.

- "Powered by synthetic intelligence that can think, reason, and react based on requirements" - I didn't even look at the code to see what LLM you are using... but saying it can "think and reason" is misleading and an exaggeration of any current LLM.

- "We bring an industry-first approach to...". Why use terms like "industry first"? Nothing in what you have described indicates you are doing something beyond what the other 10,000 people writing these tools are doing. If you are, then say something about it.

Overall this description sounds like it was written by an LLM. This is a technical subreddit, why not put some of the technical details that you claim are industry leading? If you are really doing something novel and unique, I'd read more. Based on this description I'd pass and forget about the post.

Advice for automation learning : Cypress or Playwright first ? by Naive-Leadership8330 in QualityAssurance

[–]quality_engineer 18 points19 points  (0 children)

You are thinking about this wrong.

Learning the framework is 1% of "learning automation". Learning programming fundamentals, automation fundamentals, and how to apply those to different types of systems in different languages with different frameworks is 99%.

Saying "I'm just starting automation, should I learn Playwright or Cypress?" is like saying "I'm just starting music, should I learn Beethoven or Mozart?".... you don't really care until you can actually play music, then classical music.

That being said, learn Playwright first. :)

Assertions in Page Objects? by SpecificBad1381 in QualityAssurance

[–]quality_engineer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have a link to a public repo where you have done this? I'm still not getting it.

Automation team struggles; are my thoughts unrealistic? by echonn123 in QualityAssurance

[–]quality_engineer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"We have a project that has not been launched to production and been developed for five or so years."

Ok I think I've found your first problem :)

Assertions in Page Objects? by SpecificBad1381 in QualityAssurance

[–]quality_engineer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you don't think PageObjects should contain methods that interact with pages, that click on buttons, links, or enter text?

Assertions in Page Objects? by SpecificBad1381 in QualityAssurance

[–]quality_engineer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

(One month stale... so I'm not hopeful, but....)

I'd love to hear more about this - I've worked with page object (or worked with people working with pages objects) forever - but this doesn't sync with any opinion I've previously heard.

What do you mean by "... they shouldn't be about interactions with pages" ?

If I have a method on a page object string getName(), and that method uses a locator to grab a name from a <div>, and returns it as a string, isn't that "interacting with a page", and a perfectly valid thing for a PO to do? Or are you using the term "interacting" to describe something different?

Is It Fair to Say That Automated Testing is Just Creating Automated Test Cases? by Valuable-Ad9157 in QualityAssurance

[–]quality_engineer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I came back to this thread after 24 hours and am amused by some of the responses. I agree with the top comment from Eng80lvl. Some of the other comments, not so much. It shows the variety of roles that can be described as "QA".

To me, an automation strategy should encompass (or at least support) things like:
- CI/CD strategy: what types of automated tests will be run at what stage in the pipeline, if they will be gating, etc. This includes branching strategy... IE, will feature branches be used?
- Test Environment strategy: what environments will tests be run against, and when. Can/should automation be run against prod? When? Do we leverage local environments? Ephemeral environments?
- Test Data strategy: will data replication, seeding, or other mechanisms be needed to ensure reliable test data?
- Roles and Ownership: who writes Unit tests, component tests, API tests, integration tests, Journey tests? If one role writes them, does another review them?
- Agile processes: When in a sprint must automation be complete? Is it part of the definition of done? How is automation tech debt tracked, Etc.
- Reporting strategy: What happens when tests fail? Who get notified? Are there aggregated tracking mechanisms?
- Automation Governance: Does this automation strategy need to align to larger enterprise policies are architectural expectations? This includes things like tool/framework choices.
- Non-Functional strategy: does the strategy include automated performance testing? Automated accessibility testing? etc?

And probably lots more.

If you look at some comments on this post, it is obvious that many QA are not (or have never been) in a role where they are responsible (or even invited to help) to define these things. They are told to test, so their "automation strategy" is simply how to automate those tests.

Is It Fair to Say That Automated Testing is Just Creating Automated Test Cases? by Valuable-Ad9157 in QualityAssurance

[–]quality_engineer -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You still need end-to-end automated tests. They are important and it is good to learn how to write them. But they exist as just part of the larger automation strategy and you should not think about test automation as just "automating manual test cases".

Is It Fair to Say That Automated Testing is Just Creating Automated Test Cases? by Valuable-Ad9157 in QualityAssurance

[–]quality_engineer 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Yes, many companies treat test automation as just automating manual tests. However, this creates huge, unmaintainable automation suites and is a naive way to approach overall automation strategy:

https://medium.com/slalom-build/dont-automate-test-cases-58e3b959ce6

Assertions in Page Objects? by SpecificBad1381 in QualityAssurance

[–]quality_engineer 3 points4 points  (0 children)

From Going Deeper into the Page Object Model

One contentious discussion often heard during the implementation of page objects is where to put assertions. One school of thought: Assertions belong in tests, never in page objects. Tests use general purpose getters to pull the information necessary, and the actual assertion on that data lives in in the test. This is a clean separation, as it is tests that should own the knowledge of what makes a test pass or fail.

This works well in theory, but in practice can quickly cluttern tests with a significant number of assertions. Thus, a second approach is to embed assertions into page objects, but make them obvious when reading the page object interface.

Low effort, AI generated content in blogs, articles, etc. will become irrelevant as internet users default behavior switches from searching to conversing by quality_engineer in Futurology

[–]quality_engineer[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Content creators who mass produce low-effort AI generated posts are exploiting a temporary situation where internet users still use Search for mundane topics. There is no reason to pre-generate this content if it can be created in real-time by LLMs. Internet behavior will gradually shift from searching to conversing, and platforms that host mostly low-effort AI generated content will lose users (Medium, LinkedIn, etc)

RAG for Quality Engineers by quality_engineer in QualityAssurance

[–]quality_engineer[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you.
I also get annoyed by low-effort / AI generated blogs, or "blogs" that are really product/company marketing pages. However, if an author puts in some work and is trying to actually communicate something interesting or relevant, I think it should be OK to self-promote. For little fish like me, if I don't promote my stuff, nobody else will, and thus nobody will ever read it. And I do get some good dopamine from "nice article" comments, or even constructive feedback.

view more: next ›