This is Manual Locker 🙂 . He takes 2 to 3 seconds to lock and almost the same time to unlock. Once you pull him to left you can clearly see that he has locked the door and you feel very secure. Purpose Solved
And this is hi-fi one click automation locker 🙂 this guy needs just one click to lock. But do you ever feel secure after using this lock? At least I am not. I always test this lock first by locking it with doors kept open and try to open it from outside to make sure the lock works 😀
The same is true with manual and automation testing. How many of us feel comfortable after the so called automation scripts run and say the script passed?
What other benefits does automation lock provides than manual lock? I don’t think anything great in this context.
Both the locks solve the same purpose with no added benefits by automation. Yes, it may save 1 to 2 seconds, but considering the resources and time invested to design and manufacture the automation lock, was it worth investing? I doubt
Not convinced? Read further to know what happens if automation lock fails miserably. One sad day my friend got stuck inside bathroom for close to one hour when the critical spring inside the lock broke. So there was no option other than breaking the lock to release him :D. Purpose dissolved
Ok, now take a look at the amount of resource wasted. Also wondering how much time wasted to design such a fancy lock. At the same time the manual lock is very simple, uses less resource, simple design and solves the desired purpose neatly.
This is how automation testing done at most places, if your manual testing solves the purpose what is the need for automation testing?
Phew! Here are the reasons to do such fancy automation
- Attract the client by projecting automation
- Attract testers by show-casing automation projects (testers are blindly believing it)
- Resource utilization, if there is not much testing due to delay in development put them in automation
- “Succumbing to The Golden Elephant Syndrome: James Bach calls one of the terrible pathologies of testing. A white elephant may be a big, useless thing, but if it’s made of gold and costs a lot of money, it’s tempting to some people to try to use it anyway. Expensive tools can cause a lot of trouble if they are badly designed and unreliable. If such a tool were cheap, we wouldn’t hesitate to throw it away. But if it’s expensive, the person who bought it doesn’t want to look like a fool-and thus becomes a bigger fool “ – this is an extract from Perfect Software:And Other Illusions about Testing
Instead, why don’t we allow the testers to explore, question the product, so they might uncover some critical bugs, which client might discover later. Such exploration might bring in new ideas, suggestions and enhancements to the product that might help to better your competitors. Encourage testers to improve their critical thinking and analytical skill .Conduct bug battles and encourage them to write articles, blogs at least within the organization.
From my experience everywhere regression automation is a fancy way to attract clients. For instance if you goal is to reach the top floor you may take elevator instead of staircase, so you reach quicker. But at most place goal is to walk but most try to use elevator to solve the purpose.
I can’t conclude any automation article without referring Jonathan Kohl’s “Test automation shouldn’t be a goal; test automation helps you achieve goals” . Read More Here
If you really want to achieve something out of automation read below articles first
Note : Read this relevant and a wonderful post by Umesh Gobinath about User experience and usability here